↓ Skip to main content

Animal or Plant: Which Is the Better Fog Water Collector?

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, April 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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
3 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Animal or Plant: Which Is the Better Fog Water Collector?
Published in
PLOS ONE, April 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0034603
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas Nørgaard, Martin Ebner, Marie Dacke

Abstract

Occasional fog is a critical water source utilised by plants and animals in the Namib Desert. Fog basking beetles (Onymacris unguicularis, Tenebrionidae) and Namib dune bushman grass (Stipagrostris sabulicola, Poaceae) collect water directly from the fog. While the beetles position themselves optimally for fog water collection on dune ridges, the grass occurs predominantly at the dune base where less fog water is available. Differences in the fog-water collecting abilities in animals and plants have never been addressed. Here we place beetles and grass side-by-side in a fog chamber and measure the amount of water they collect over time. Based on the accumulated amount of water over a two hour period, grass is the better fog collector. However, in contrast to the episodic cascading water run-off from the grass, the beetles obtain water in a steady flow from their elytra. This steady trickle from the beetles' elytra to their mouth could ensure that even short periods of fog basking--while exposed to predators--will yield water. Up to now there is no indication of specialised surface properties on the grass leafs, but the steady run-off from the beetles could point to specific property adaptations of their elytra surface.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 2 2%
Unknown 83 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 18%
Student > Master 14 16%
Student > Bachelor 14 16%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 9%
Researcher 7 8%
Other 16 19%
Unknown 11 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 21%
Environmental Science 14 16%
Engineering 11 13%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 7 8%
Chemistry 4 5%
Other 15 18%
Unknown 16 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 28 February 2018.
All research outputs
#2,064,890
of 22,716,996 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#26,329
of 193,928 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,954
of 161,175 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#443
of 3,717 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,716,996 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,928 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 161,175 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 3,717 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.