↓ Skip to main content

Roosting and Foraging Social Structure of the Endangered Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis)

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
7 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
110 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
Roosting and Foraging Social Structure of the Endangered Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis)
Published in
PLOS ONE, May 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0096937
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexander Silvis, Andrew B. Kniowski, Stanley D. Gehrt, W. Mark Ford

Abstract

Social dynamics are an important but poorly understood aspect of bat ecology. Herein we use a combination of graph theoretic and spatial approaches to describe the roost and social network characteristics and foraging associations of an Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) maternity colony in an agricultural landscape in Ohio, USA. We tracked 46 bats to 50 roosts (423 total relocations) and collected 2,306 foraging locations for 40 bats during the summers of 2009 and 2010. We found the colony roosting network was highly centralized in both years and that roost and social networks differed significantly from random networks. Roost and social network structure also differed substantially between years. Social network structure appeared to be unrelated to segregation of roosts between age classes. For bats whose individual foraging ranges were calculated, many shared foraging space with at least one other bat. Compared across all possible bat dyads, 47% and 43% of the dyads showed more than expected overlap of foraging areas in 2009 and 2010 respectively. Colony roosting area differed between years, but the roosting area centroid shifted only 332 m. In contrast, whole colony foraging area use was similar between years. Random roost removal simulations suggest that Indiana bat colonies may be robust to loss of a limited number of roosts but may respond differently from year to year. Our study emphasizes the utility of graphic theoretic and spatial approaches for examining the sociality and roosting behavior of bats. Detailed knowledge of the relationships between social and spatial aspects of bat ecology could greatly increase conservation effectiveness by allowing more structured approaches to roost and habitat retention for tree-roosting, socially-aggregating bat species.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 4%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 104 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 33 30%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 15%
Researcher 16 15%
Student > Bachelor 13 12%
Other 10 9%
Other 10 9%
Unknown 11 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 63 57%
Environmental Science 21 19%
Computer Science 3 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Physics and Astronomy 2 2%
Other 7 6%
Unknown 12 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 61. 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 10 June 2016.
All research outputs
#583,551
of 22,757,090 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#8,266
of 194,183 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,955
of 227,220 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#222
of 4,702 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,757,090 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 194,183 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 227,220 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,702 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 95% of its contemporaries.