↓ Skip to main content

Black-headed gulls synchronise their activity with their nearest neighbours

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, July 2018
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 (81st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
20 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 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
Black-headed gulls synchronise their activity with their nearest neighbours
Published in
Scientific Reports, July 2018
DOI 10.1038/s41598-018-28378-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Madeleine H. R. Evans, Katie L. Lihou, Sean A. Rands

Abstract

Animals in groups can benefit from synchronising their behaviour, where multiple individuals conduct similar activities at the same moment in time. Previous studies have demonstrated that some species show synchronisation of vigilance behaviour, but have not explored the mechanism driving this behaviour. Synchronisation could be driven by animals copying their closest neighbours, which would mean that close proximity should lead to increased synchronisation. We simultaneously observed the behaviour of multiple individual black-headed gulls (Chroicocephalus ridibundus) within resting groups, and compared the activity of a focal individual with its two closest neighbours and a randomly selected control individual. Focal individuals were more likely to be synchronised with their closest neighbour. Synchronisation became less likely if individuals were not the closest neighbour. This suggests that synchronisation seen within groups is dependent upon the spatial positions of its members, and black-headed gulls pay more attention to their closest neighbours.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 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 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 25%
Student > Master 5 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 21%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 8%
Other 1 4%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 1 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 63%
Environmental Science 4 17%
Psychology 2 8%
Computer Science 1 4%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 1 4%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 02 August 2018.
All research outputs
#1,989,938
of 16,386,073 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#17,070
of 87,536 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,379
of 279,841 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#6
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,386,073 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 87,536 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 279,841 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.