↓ Skip to main content

Nutrition or Detoxification: Why Bats Visit Mineral Licks of the Amazonian Rainforest

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, April 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
9 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
232 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
Nutrition or Detoxification: Why Bats Visit Mineral Licks of the Amazonian Rainforest
Published in
PLOS ONE, April 2008
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0002011
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christian C. Voigt, Krista A. Capps, Dina K. N. Dechmann, Robert H. Michener, Thomas H. Kunz

Abstract

Many animals in the tropics of Africa, Asia and South America regularly visit so-called salt or mineral licks to consume clay or drink clay-saturated water. Whether this behavior is used to supplement diets with locally limited nutrients or to buffer the effects of toxic secondary plant compounds remains unclear. In the Amazonian rainforest, pregnant and lactating bats are frequently observed and captured at mineral licks. We measured the nitrogen isotope ratio in wing tissue of omnivorous short-tailed fruit bats, Carollia perspicillata, and in an obligate fruit-eating bat, Artibeus obscurus, captured at mineral licks and at control sites in the rainforest. Carollia perspicillata with a plant-dominated diet were more often captured at mineral licks than individuals with an insect-dominated diet, although insects were more mineral depleted than fruits. In contrast, nitrogen isotope ratios of A. obscurus did not differ between individuals captured at mineral lick versus control sites. We conclude that pregnant and lactating fruit-eating bats do not visit mineral licks principally for minerals, but instead to buffer the effects of secondary plant compounds that they ingest in large quantities during periods of high energy demand. These findings have potential implications for the role of mineral licks for mammals in general, including humans.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 232 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 9 4%
United States 4 2%
Germany 3 1%
Ecuador 1 <1%
Bulgaria 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Israel 1 <1%
Unknown 212 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 45 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 40 17%
Student > Bachelor 34 15%
Researcher 30 13%
Other 12 5%
Other 43 19%
Unknown 28 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 138 59%
Environmental Science 36 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 2%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 1%
Psychology 2 <1%
Other 14 6%
Unknown 34 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 22 November 2023.
All research outputs
#3,672,234
of 23,146,350 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#45,605
of 197,751 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,351
of 81,648 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#102
of 320 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,146,350 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 197,751 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 81,648 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 320 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 68% of its contemporaries.