↓ Skip to main content

Fossils reject climate change as the cause of extinction of Caribbean bats

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, January 2015
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 (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
18 X users
facebook
11 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 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
Fossils reject climate change as the cause of extinction of Caribbean bats
Published in
Scientific Reports, January 2015
DOI 10.1038/srep07971
Pubmed ID
Authors

J. Angel Soto-Centeno, David W. Steadman

Abstract

We combined novel radiocarbon dates of bat fossils with time-scaled ecological niche models (ENM) to study bat extinctions in the Caribbean. Radiocarbon-dated fossils show that late Quaternary losses of bat populations took place during the late Holocene (<4 ka) rather than late Pleistocene (>10 ka). All bat radiocarbon dates from Abaco (Bahamas) that represent extirpated populations are younger than 4 ka. We include data on six bat species, three of which are Caribbean endemics, and include nectarivores as well as insectivores. Climate-based ENMs from the Last Glacial Maximum to the present reflect overall stability in distributions, with suitable climatic habitat being present over time. In the absence of radiocarbon dates, bat extinctions had been presumed to take place during the last glacial-interglacial transition (ca. 10 ka). Now we see that extirpation of bats on these tropical islands is more complex than previously thought and primarily postdates the major climate changes that took place during the late Pleistocene-Holocene transition.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 4%
France 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Romania 1 1%
Mexico 1 1%
Unknown 61 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 22%
Researcher 14 20%
Student > Master 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 12 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 29 42%
Environmental Science 11 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 9%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 4 6%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 13 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 19 February 2015.
All research outputs
#1,224,337
of 24,573,729 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#12,088
of 133,999 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,117
of 361,674 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#92
of 1,111 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,573,729 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 133,999 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 361,674 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,111 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 91% of its contemporaries.