↓ Skip to main content

Article

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Ecology, January 2003
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#42 of 416)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
114 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
Published in
BMC Ecology, January 2003
DOI 10.1186/1472-6785-3-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nette Levermann, Anders Galatius, Göran Ehlme, Søren Rysgaard, Erik W Born

Abstract

Direct observations of underwater behaviour of free-living marine mammals are rare. This is particularly true for large and potentially dangerous species such as the walrus (Odobenus rosmarus). Walruses are highly specialised predators on benthic invertebrates - especially bivalves. The unique feeding niche of walruses has led to speculations as to their underwater foraging behaviour. Based on observations of walruses in captivity and signs of predation left on the sea floor by free-living walruses, various types of feeding behaviour have been suggested in the literature. In this study, however, the underwater feeding behaviour of wild adult male Atlantic walruses (O. r. rosmarus) is documented for the first time in their natural habitat by scuba-divers. The video recordings indicated a predisposition for use of the right front flipper during feeding. This tendency towards dextrality was explored further by examining a museum collection of extremities of walrus skeletons.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 5%
Australia 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 100 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 31 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 17%
Student > Master 17 15%
Student > Bachelor 13 11%
Professor 7 6%
Other 19 17%
Unknown 8 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 74 65%
Environmental Science 14 12%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 5 4%
Psychology 4 4%
Mathematics 2 2%
Other 6 5%
Unknown 9 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 15 May 2021.
All research outputs
#800,287
of 18,880,385 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ecology
#42
of 416 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,587
of 233,189 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ecology
#5
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,880,385 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 416 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 233,189 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 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.