↓ Skip to main content

Validation of adipose lipid content as a body condition index for polar bears

Overview of attention for article published in Ecology and Evolution, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 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
Validation of adipose lipid content as a body condition index for polar bears
Published in
Ecology and Evolution, January 2014
DOI 10.1002/ece3.956
Pubmed ID
Authors

Melissa A. McKinney, Todd Atwood, Rune Dietz, Christian Sonne, Sara J. Iverson, Elizabeth Peacock

Abstract

Body condition is a key indicator of individual and population health. Yet, there is little consensus as to the most appropriate condition index (CI), and most of the currently used CIs have not been thoroughly validated and are logistically challenging. Adipose samples from large datasets of capture biopsied, remote biopsied, and harvested polar bears were used to validate adipose lipid content as a CI via tests of accuracy, precision, sensitivity, biopsy depth, and storage conditions and comparisons to established CIs, to measures of health and to demographic and ecological parameters. The lipid content analyses of even very small biopsy samples were highly accurate and precise, but results were influenced by tissue depth at which the sample was taken. Lipid content of capture biopsies and samples from harvested adult females was correlated with established CIs and/or conformed to expected biological variation and ecological changes. However, lipid content of remote biopsies was lower than capture biopsies and harvested samples, possibly due to lipid loss during dart retrieval. Lipid content CI is a biologically relevant, relatively inexpensive and rapidly assessed CI and can be determined routinely for individuals and populations in order to infer large-scale spatial and long-term temporal trends. As it is possible to collect samples during routine harvesting or remotely using biopsy darts, monitoring and assessment of body condition can be accomplished without capture and handling procedures or noninvasively, which are methods that are preferred by local communities. However, further work is needed to apply the method to remote biopsies.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 60 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 23%
Researcher 11 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 18%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Other 3 5%
Other 9 15%
Unknown 7 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 37 61%
Environmental Science 7 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 9 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 16 December 2014.
All research outputs
#10,189,686
of 15,989,201 outputs
Outputs from Ecology and Evolution
#3,700
of 5,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162,406
of 307,425 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ecology and Evolution
#53
of 76 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,989,201 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,066 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 307,425 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 76 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.