↓ Skip to main content

Echolocation in Oilbirds and swiftlets

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, January 2013
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 (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
15 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
6 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
85 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
177 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
Echolocation in Oilbirds and swiftlets
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2013.00123
Pubmed ID
Authors

Signe Brinkløv, M. Brock Fenton, John M. Ratcliffe

Abstract

The discovery of ultrasonic bat echolocation prompted a wide search for other animal biosonar systems, which yielded, among few others, two avian groups. One, the South American Oilbird (Steatornis caripensis: Caprimulgiformes), is nocturnal and eats fruit. The other is a selection of diurnal, insect-eating swiftlets (species in the genera Aerodramus and Collocalia: Apodidae) from across the Indo-Pacific. Bird echolocation is restricted to lower frequencies audible to humans, implying a system of poorer resolution than the ultrasonic (>20 kHz) biosonar of most bats and toothed whales. As such, bird echolocation has been labeled crude or rudimentary. Yet, echolocation is found in at least 16 extant bird species and has evolved several times in avian lineages. Birds use their syringes to produce broadband click-type biosonar signals that allow them to nest in dark caves and tunnels, probably with less predation pressure. There are ongoing discrepancies about several details of bird echolocation, from signal design to the question about whether echolocation is used during foraging. It remains to be seen if bird echolocation is as sophisticated as that of tongue-clicking rousette bats. Bird echolocation performance appears to be superior to that of blind humans using signals of notable similarity. However, no apparent specializations have been found so far in the birds' auditory system (from middle ear to higher processing centers). The advent of light-weight recording equipment and custom software for examining signals and reconstructing flight paths now provides the potential to study the echolocation behavior of birds in more detail and resolve such issues.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 177 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 172 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 40 23%
Researcher 25 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 13%
Student > Master 20 11%
Student > Postgraduate 10 6%
Other 22 12%
Unknown 37 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 89 50%
Environmental Science 17 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 5%
Neuroscience 6 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 2%
Other 14 8%
Unknown 39 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 54. 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 26 January 2024.
All research outputs
#786,838
of 25,362,278 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#434
of 15,616 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,895
of 289,173 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#11
of 399 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,362,278 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,616 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 289,173 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 399 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 97% of its contemporaries.