↓ Skip to main content

Multiple mortality events in bats: a global review

Overview of attention for article published in Mammal Review, January 2016
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 (#8 of 504)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
18 news outlets
blogs
5 blogs
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
149 tweeters
facebook
7 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
186 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
430 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
Multiple mortality events in bats: a global review
Published in
Mammal Review, January 2016
DOI 10.1111/mam.12064
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas J. O'Shea, Paul M. Cryan, David T.S. Hayman, Raina K. Plowright, Daniel G. Streicker

Abstract

Despite conservation concerns for many species of bats, factors causing mortality in bats have not been reviewed since 1970. Here we review and qualitatively describe trends in the occurrence and apparent causes of multiple mortality events (MMEs) in bats around the world.We compiled a database of MMEs, defined as cases in which ≥ 10 dead bats were counted or estimated at a specific location within a maximum timescale of a year, and more typically within a few days or a season. We tabulated 1180 MMEs within nine categories.Prior to the year 2000, intentional killing by humans caused the greatest proportion of MMEs in bats. In North America and Europe, people typically killed bats because they were perceived as nuisances. Intentional killing occurred in South America for vampire bat control, in Asia and Australia for fruit depredation control, and in Africa and Asia for human food. Biotic factors, accidents, and natural abiotic factors were also important historically. Chemical contaminants were confirmed causes of MMEs in North America, Europe, and on islands. Viral and bacterial diseases ranked low as causes of MMEs in bats.Two factors led to a major shift in causes of MMEs in bats at around the year 2000: the global increase of industrial wind-power facilities and the outbreak of white-nose syndrome in North America. Collisions with wind turbines and white-nose syndrome are now the leading causes of reported MMEs in bats.Collectively, over half of all reported MMEs were of anthropogenic origin. The documented occurrence of MMEs in bats due to abiotic factors such as intense storms, flooding, heat waves, and drought is likely to increase in the future with climate change. Coupled with the chronic threats of roosting and foraging habitat loss, increasing mortality through MMEs is unlikely to be compensated for, given the need for high survival in the dynamics of bat populations.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 149 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 430 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Romania 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 420 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 77 18%
Student > Master 73 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 58 13%
Student > Bachelor 51 12%
Other 34 8%
Other 57 13%
Unknown 80 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 192 45%
Environmental Science 74 17%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 12 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 2%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 9 2%
Other 34 8%
Unknown 99 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 284. 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 March 2022.
All research outputs
#95,193
of 22,002,998 outputs
Outputs from Mammal Review
#8
of 504 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,815
of 376,233 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Mammal Review
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,002,998 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 504 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 376,233 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 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them