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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Use of dung as a tool by burrowing owls
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nature, September 2004
|
| DOI | 10.1038/431039a |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Douglas J. Levey, R. Scot Duncan, Carrie F. Levins |
| Abstract |
Reports of tool usage by birds tend to be anecdotal as only a few individuals may be involved and the behaviour observed can often be interpreted in other ways. Here we describe the widespread collection of mammalian dung by burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia) and show that they use this dung as a bait to attract dung beetles, a major item of prey. Our controlled investigation provides an unambiguous estimate of the importance of tool use in a wild animal. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 20% |
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Finland | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 140 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 7 | 5% |
| United States | 2 | 1% |
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| Ecuador | 1 | <1% |
| Israel | 1 | <1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Czechia | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 125 | 89% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 23 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 7% |
| Professor | 9 | 6% |
| Other | 23 | 16% |
| Unknown | 43 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 72 | 51% |
| Environmental Science | 11 | 8% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 3 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 1% |
| Psychology | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 4 | 3% |
| Unknown | 46 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 06 November 2023.
All research outputs
#1,848,635
of 25,364,936 outputs
Outputs from Nature
#41,527
of 97,769 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,376
of 69,937 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature
#74
of 402 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,364,936 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 97,769 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 102.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 69,937 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 402 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.