↓ Skip to main content

Navigational Efficiency of Nocturnal Myrmecia Ants Suffers at Low Light Levels

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, March 2013
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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 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
Navigational Efficiency of Nocturnal Myrmecia Ants Suffers at Low Light Levels
Published in
PLOS ONE, March 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0058801
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ajay Narendra, Samuel F. Reid, Chloé A. Raderschall

Abstract

Insects face the challenge of navigating to specific goals in both bright sun-lit and dim-lit environments. Both diurnal and nocturnal insects use quite similar navigation strategies. This is despite the signal-to-noise ratio of the navigational cues being poor at low light conditions. To better understand the evolution of nocturnal life, we investigated the navigational efficiency of a nocturnal ant, Myrmecia pyriformis, at different light levels. Workers of M. pyriformis leave the nest individually in a narrow light-window in the evening twilight to forage on nest-specific Eucalyptus trees. The majority of foragers return to the nest in the morning twilight, while few attempt to return to the nest throughout the night. We found that as light levels dropped, ants paused for longer, walked more slowly, the success in finding the nest reduced and their paths became less straight. We found that in both bright and dark conditions ants relied predominantly on visual landmark information for navigation and that landmark guidance became less reliable at low light conditions. It is perhaps due to the poor navigational efficiency at low light levels that the majority of foragers restrict navigational tasks to the twilight periods, where sufficient navigational information is still available.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Finland 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 61 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 28%
Researcher 14 22%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Other 5 8%
Student > Master 5 8%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 9 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 32 50%
Environmental Science 7 11%
Physics and Astronomy 3 5%
Neuroscience 3 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 11 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 12 October 2022.
All research outputs
#1,939,044
of 23,509,982 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#24,660
of 201,403 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,110
of 196,549 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#597
of 5,410 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,509,982 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 201,403 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 well, scoring higher than 87% 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 196,549 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,410 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.