↓ Skip to main content

Flexibility in Food Extraction Techniques in Urban Free-Ranging Bonnet Macaques, Macaca radiata

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 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
Flexibility in Food Extraction Techniques in Urban Free-Ranging Bonnet Macaques, Macaca radiata
Published in
PLOS ONE, December 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0085497
Pubmed ID
Authors

Madhur Mangalam, Mewa Singh

Abstract

Non-human primate populations, other than responding appropriately to naturally occurring challenges, also need to cope with anthropogenic factors such as environmental pollution, resource depletion, and habitat destruction. Populations and individuals are likely to show considerable variations in food extraction abilities, with some populations and individuals more efficient than others at exploiting a set of resources. In this study, we examined among urban free-ranging bonnet macaques, Macaca radiata (a) local differences in food extraction abilities, (b) between-individual variation and within-individual consistency in problem-solving success and the underlying problem-solving characteristics, and (c) behavioral patterns associated with higher efficiency in food extraction. When presented with novel food extraction tasks, the urban macaques having more frequent exposure to novel physical objects in their surroundings, extracted food material from PET bottles and also solved another food extraction task (i.e., extracting an orange from a wire mesh box), more often than those living under more natural conditions. Adults solved the tasks more frequently than juveniles, and females more frequently than males. Both solution-technique and problem-solving characteristics varied across individuals but remained consistent within each individual across the successive presentations of PET bottles. The macaques that solved the tasks showed lesser within-individual variation in their food extraction behavior as compared to those that failed to solve the tasks. A few macaques appropriately modified their problem-solving behavior in accordance with the task requirements and solved the modified versions of the tasks without trial-and-error learning. These observations are ecologically relevant - they demonstrate considerable local differences in food extraction abilities, between-individual variation and within-individual consistency in food extraction techniques among free-ranging bonnet macaques, possibly affecting the species' local adaptability and resilience to environmental changes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 2%
Unknown 48 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 31%
Student > Bachelor 7 14%
Student > Master 6 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Researcher 3 6%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 6 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 37%
Environmental Science 9 18%
Psychology 6 12%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 4%
Unspecified 1 2%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 8 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 21 June 2020.
All research outputs
#7,399,510
of 24,364,603 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#94,652
of 210,089 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,754
of 316,334 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,995
of 5,554 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,364,603 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 210,089 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 316,334 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,554 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 63% of its contemporaries.