↓ Skip to main content

Does spatial learning ability of common voles (Microtus arvalis) and bank voles (Myodes glareolus) constrain foraging efficiency?

Overview of attention for article published in Animal Cognition, July 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Does spatial learning ability of common voles (Microtus arvalis) and bank voles (Myodes glareolus) constrain foraging efficiency?
Published in
Animal Cognition, July 2010
DOI 10.1007/s10071-010-0327-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Moritz Haupt, Jana A. Eccard, York Winter

Abstract

Place learning abilities represent adaptations that contribute also to foraging efficiency under given spatio-temporal conditions. We investigated if this ability in turn constrains decision making in two sympatric vole species: while the herbivorous common vole (Microtus arvalis) feeds on spatio-temporally predictable food resources (e.g. roots, tubers and shoots of plant tubers), the omnivorous bank vole (Myodes glareolus) additionally subsists on temporally unpredictable food resources (e.g. insects and seeds). Here, we compare the spatial reference memory and working memory of the two species. In an automated operant home cage with eight water places, female voles either had to learn the fixed position of non-depletable places (reference memory task) or learn and avoid previously visited water places depleted in a single visit (win-shift task). In the reference memory task, Microtus females required significantly more choices to find all water places, initially performed slightly worse than Myodes females, and displayed slightly lower asymptotic performance. Both species were highly similar in new learning of the same task. In the more complex win-shift task, asymptotic performance was significantly lower in Microtus (72% correct) than in Myodes (79%). Our results suggest that both vole species resemble each other in their efficiency to exploit habitats with low spatio-temporal complexity but may differ in their efficiency at exploiting habitats with temporally changing spatial food distributions. The results imply that spatial ability adjusted to specific food distributions may impair flexible use of habitats that differ in their food distribution and therefore, decrease a species' chances of survival in highly dynamic environments.

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 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
Unknown 64 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 21%
Student > Master 12 18%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Other 3 4%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 9 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 37 55%
Psychology 5 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Environmental Science 3 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 3%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 12 18%
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 27 January 2021.
All research outputs
#6,413,376
of 22,786,087 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#875
of 1,451 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,301
of 93,804 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#5
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,786,087 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,451 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.5. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 93,804 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.