↓ Skip to main content

Electric Field Detection in Sawfish and Shovelnose Rays

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, July 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
33 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Electric Field Detection in Sawfish and Shovelnose Rays
Published in
PLOS ONE, July 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0041605
Pubmed ID
Authors

Barbara E. Wueringer, Lyle Squire, Stephen M. Kajiura, Ian R. Tibbetts, Nathan S. Hart, Shaun P. Collin

Abstract

In the aquatic environment, living organisms emit weak dipole electric fields, which spread in the surrounding water. Elasmobranchs detect these dipole electric fields with their highly sensitive electroreceptors, the ampullae of Lorenzini. Freshwater sawfish, Pristis microdon, and two species of shovelnose rays, Glaucostegus typus and Aptychotrema rostrata were tested for their reactions towards weak artificial electric dipole fields. The comparison of sawfishes and shovelnose rays sheds light on the evolution and function of the elongated rostrum ('saw') of sawfish, as both groups evolved from a shovelnose ray-like ancestor. Electric stimuli were presented both on the substrate (to mimic benthic prey) and suspended in the water column (to mimic free-swimming prey). Analysis of around 480 behavioural sequences shows that all three species are highly sensitive towards weak electric dipole fields, and initiate behavioural responses at median field strengths between 5.15 and 79.6 nV cm(-1). The response behaviours used by sawfish and shovelnose rays depended on the location of the dipoles. The elongation of the sawfish's rostrum clearly expanded their electroreceptive search area into the water column and enables them to target free-swimming prey.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Unknown 74 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 26%
Student > Bachelor 17 22%
Student > Master 12 16%
Researcher 12 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 1%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 10 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 40 53%
Environmental Science 10 13%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 3%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 12 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 March 2021.
All research outputs
#1,176,580
of 23,318,744 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#15,531
of 199,315 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,790
of 165,768 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#236
of 3,991 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,318,744 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 199,315 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 165,768 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,991 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.