↓ Skip to main content

Please, more tears: a case of a moth feeding on antbird tears in central Amazonia

Overview of attention for article published in Ecology, January 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#7 of 6,080)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
33 news outlets
blogs
5 blogs
twitter
426 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
3 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
8 Mendeley
Title
Please, more tears: a case of a moth feeding on antbird tears in central Amazonia
Published in
Ecology, January 2019
DOI 10.1002/ecy.2518
Pubmed ID
Authors

Leandro João Carneiro de Lima Moraes

Abstract

The vertebrate tear-feeding (lachryphagy) on birds by moths is a rarely documented event, with only two known records from Madagascar (Hilgartner et al. 2007) and Colombia (Sazima 2015). In these events, the moths insert their morphologically adapted proboscis (Zaspel et al. 2011) on the target species' ocular area to feed on their tears (Hilgartner et al. 2007, Zenker et al. 2011). Although one currently known moth is an obligatory lachryphagous species (Waage 1979), most of them feed on tears as a supplementary method to obtain nutrients, mainly sodium and proteins (Plotkin and Goddard 2013). This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 426 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 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 8 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 2 25%
Student > Master 2 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 25%
Professor 1 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 13%
Other 0 0%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 2 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 25%
Computer Science 1 13%
Engineering 1 13%
Unknown 2 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 583. 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 20 February 2021.
All research outputs
#21,032
of 17,646,151 outputs
Outputs from Ecology
#7
of 6,080 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#591
of 285,459 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ecology
#2
of 75 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,646,151 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,080 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 285,459 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 75 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 98% of its contemporaries.