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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Reproductive responses of birds to experimental food supplementation: a meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Zoology, October 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12983-014-0080-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lise Ruffino, Pälvi Salo, Elina Koivisto, Peter B Banks, Erkki Korpimäki |
| Abstract |
Food availability is an important environmental cue for animals for deciding how much to invest in reproduction, and it ultimately affects population size. The importance of food limitation has been extensively studied in terrestrial vertebrate populations, especially in birds, by experimentally manipulating food supply. However, the factors explaining variation in reproductive decisions in response to food supplementation remain unclear. By performing meta-analyses, we aim to quantify the extent to which supplementary feeding affects several reproductive parameters in birds, and identify the key factors (life-history traits, behavioural factors, environmental factors, and experimental design) that can induce variation in laying date, clutch size and breeding success (i.e., number of fledglings produced) in response to food supplementation. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 13% |
| South Africa | 1 | 7% |
| Australia | 1 | 7% |
| Spain | 1 | 7% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 7% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 7% |
| Germany | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 7 | 47% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 67% |
| Scientists | 5 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 141 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 137 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 31 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 28 | 20% |
| Researcher | 21 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 17 | 12% |
| Unknown | 23 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 69 | 49% |
| Environmental Science | 28 | 20% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 3% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 4% |
| Unknown | 29 | 21% |
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 28 May 2019.
All research outputs
#3,418,906
of 25,542,788 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Zoology
#207
of 700 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,469
of 274,866 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Zoology
#6
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,542,788 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 700 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 274,866 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.