↓ Skip to main content

Proximate effects of temperature versus evolved intrinsic constraints for embryonic development times among temperate and tropical songbirds

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 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
Proximate effects of temperature versus evolved intrinsic constraints for embryonic development times among temperate and tropical songbirds
Published in
Scientific Reports, April 2017
DOI 10.1038/s41598-017-00885-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Riccardo Ton, Thomas E. Martin

Abstract

The relative importance of intrinsic constraints imposed by evolved physiological trade-offs versus the proximate effects of temperature for interspecific variation in embryonic development time remains unclear. Understanding this distinction is important because slow development due to evolved trade-offs can yield phenotypic benefits, whereas slow development from low temperature can yield costs. We experimentally increased embryonic temperature in free-living tropical and north temperate songbird species to test these alternatives. Warmer temperatures consistently shortened development time without costs to embryo mass or metabolism. However, proximate effects of temperature played an increasingly stronger role than intrinsic constraints for development time among species with colder natural incubation temperatures. Long development times of tropical birds have been thought to primarily reflect evolved physiological trade-offs that facilitate their greater longevity. In contrast, our results indicate a much stronger role of temperature in embryonic development time than currently thought.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 22%
Student > Bachelor 6 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 16%
Researcher 4 13%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 2 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 59%
Environmental Science 6 19%
Psychology 2 6%
Neuroscience 1 3%
Unknown 4 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 03 May 2017.
All research outputs
#3,289,102
of 13,115,713 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#19,507
of 62,144 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,445
of 263,337 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#727
of 2,161 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,115,713 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 62,144 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 263,337 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2,161 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.