↓ Skip to main content

The origins and diversity of bat songs

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Comparative Physiology A, June 2016
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 (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
7 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
109 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
The origins and diversity of bat songs
Published in
Journal of Comparative Physiology A, June 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00359-016-1105-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Smotherman, Mirjam Knörnschild, Grace Smarsh, Kirsten Bohn

Abstract

Singing plays an important role in the social lives of several disparate bat species, but just how significant the behavior may be among bats generally is unknown. Recent discoveries suggest singing by bats might be surprisingly more diverse and widespread than anticipated, but if true then two questions must be addressed: firstly why has singing been so rarely documented among bats, and secondly do bats sing for the same reasons as songbirds? We address the first question by reviewing how sampling bias and technical constraints may have produced a myopic view of bat social communication. To address the second question, we review evidence from 50 years of batsong literature supporting the supposition that bat singing is linked to the same constellation of ecological variables that favored birdsong, including territoriality, polygyny, metabolic constraints, migratory behaviors and especially powered flight. We propose that bats sing like birds because they fly like birds; flight is energetically expensive and singing reduces time spent flying. Factoring in the singular importance of acoustic communication for echolocating bats, it seems likely that singing may prove to be relatively common among certain groups of bats once it becomes clear when and where to look for it.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Unknown 107 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 17%
Researcher 16 15%
Student > Master 11 10%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Other 26 24%
Unknown 20 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 60 55%
Environmental Science 8 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 5%
Neuroscience 5 5%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 2%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 24 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 22 January 2024.
All research outputs
#2,257,107
of 25,211,948 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Comparative Physiology A
#124
of 1,502 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,532
of 361,026 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Comparative Physiology A
#1
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,211,948 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,502 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 361,026 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 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 99% of its contemporaries.