↓ Skip to main content

Cockroaches Probably Cleaned Up after Dinosaurs

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, December 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
blogs
5 blogs
twitter
93 X users
facebook
9 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
reddit
2 Redditors

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 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
Cockroaches Probably Cleaned Up after Dinosaurs
Published in
PLOS ONE, December 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0080560
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter Vršanský, Thomas van de Kamp, Dany Azar, Alexander Prokin, L'ubomír Vidlička, Patrik Vagovič

Abstract

Dinosaurs undoubtedly produced huge quantities of excrements. But who cleaned up after them? Dung beetles and flies with rapid development were rare during most of the Mesozoic. Candidates for these duties are extinct cockroaches (Blattulidae), whose temporal range is associated with herbivorous dinosaurs. An opportunity to test this hypothesis arises from coprolites to some extent extruded from an immature cockroach preserved in the amber of Lebanon, studied using synchrotron X-ray microtomography. 1.06% of their volume is filled by particles of wood with smooth edges, in which size distribution directly supports their external pre-digestion. Because fungal pre-processing can be excluded based on the presence of large particles (combined with small total amount of wood) and absence of damages on wood, the likely source of wood are herbivore feces. Smaller particles were broken down biochemically in the cockroach hind gut, which indicates that the recent lignin-decomposing termite and cockroach endosymbionts might have been transferred to the cockroach gut upon feeding on dinosaur feces.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 93 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 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 2%
Chile 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Thailand 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 47 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 17%
Student > Bachelor 8 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 10%
Professor 4 8%
Other 12 23%
Unknown 8 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 22 42%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 9 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Environmental Science 3 6%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 10 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 143. 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 March 2024.
All research outputs
#297,401
of 25,874,560 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#4,251
of 225,659 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,614
of 322,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#114
of 5,032 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,874,560 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 225,659 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 322,359 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,032 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.