↓ Skip to main content

Whether European eel leptocephali use the Earth’s magnetic field to guide their migration remains an open question

Overview of attention for article published in Current Biology, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Readers on

mendeley
47 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.
Article details
Title
Whether European eel leptocephali use the Earth’s magnetic field to guide their migration remains an open question
Published in
Current Biology, September 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.cub.2017.08.045
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

European eels (Anguilla anguilla) migrate between the southwestern Sargasso Sea and the European and Mediterranean coasts. In a recent paper in Current Biology, Naisbett-Jones et al.[1] claim to "provide the first evidence that they [eels] derive positional information from the Earth's magnetic field" and that this information guides their migration. The evidence reported by Naisbett-Jones et al.[1] in support of this conclusion was derived from eels collected in the Severn River (UK), approximately 50 km upstream of the estuary (i.e. not "in the Severn Estuary" as stated by the authors). Eels collected this far into rivers are benthic and fully adapted to freshwater; that is, they are late-stage glass eels (∼ 2 years old), not the pelagic leptocephalus (larval) life stage that actually undertakes the trans-Atlantic migration. The entire interpretive framework for the Naisbett-Jones et al.[1] study rests on the assumption that the behaviour of these late-stage freshwater glass eels, and their responses to magnetic fields, can be used as a proxy for the responses of eel leptocephali. The authors present no evidence in support of this key assumption.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 21%
Professor 5 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Student > Master 3 6%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 12 26%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 34%
Environmental Science 7 15%
Chemistry 2 4%
Unspecified 1 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 15 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 27 September 2017.
All research outputs
#11,382,524
of 32,665,822 outputs
Outputs from Current Biology
#11,257
of 16,809 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#134,728
of 345,027 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Biology
#174
of 221 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,665,822 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 65th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,809 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 63.5. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 345,027 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 221 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.