↓ Skip to main content

Surpassing Mt. Everest: extreme flight performance of alpine bumble-bees

Overview of attention for article published in Biology Letters, February 2014
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 (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
18 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
70 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
7 Google+ users
reddit
2 Redditors

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
124 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
Surpassing Mt. Everest: extreme flight performance of alpine bumble-bees
Published in
Biology Letters, February 2014
DOI 10.1098/rsbl.2013.0922
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael E. Dillon, Robert Dudley

Abstract

Animal flight at altitude involves substantial aerodynamic and physiological challenges. Hovering at high elevations is particularly demanding from the dual perspectives of lift and power output; nevertheless, some volant insects reside and fly at elevations in excess of 4000 m. Here, we demonstrate that alpine bumble-bees possess substantial aerodynamic reserves, and can sustain hovering flight under hypobaria at effective elevations in excess of 9000 m, i.e. higher than Mt. Everest. Modulation of stroke amplitude and not wingbeat frequency is the primary means of compensation for overcoming the aerodynamic challenge. The presence of such excess capacity in a high-altitude bumble-bee is surprising and suggests intermittent behavioural demands for extreme flight performance supplemental to routine foraging.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 70 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 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 6 5%
United States 3 2%
Sweden 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Unknown 111 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 22%
Researcher 20 16%
Student > Bachelor 17 14%
Student > Master 16 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Other 18 15%
Unknown 17 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 70 56%
Engineering 14 11%
Environmental Science 9 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Other 6 5%
Unknown 18 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 228. 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 07 August 2021.
All research outputs
#97,929
of 18,823,067 outputs
Outputs from Biology Letters
#148
of 2,953 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,114
of 269,068 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biology Letters
#3
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,823,067 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,953 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 50.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 269,068 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 95 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 96% of its contemporaries.