↓ Skip to main content

Emergent dynamics of laboratory insect swarms

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, 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)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
86 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
130 Mendeley
Title
Emergent dynamics of laboratory insect swarms
Published in
Scientific Reports, January 2013
DOI 10.1038/srep01073
Pubmed ID
Authors

Douglas H. Kelley, Nicholas T. Ouellette

Abstract

Collective animal behaviour occurs at nearly every biological size scale, from single-celled organisms to the largest animals on earth. It has long been known that models with simple interaction rules can reproduce qualitative features of this complex behaviour. But determining whether these models accurately capture the biology requires data from real animals, which has historically been difficult to obtain. Here, we report three-dimensional, time-resolved measurements of the positions, velocities, and accelerations of individual insects in laboratory swarms of the midge Chironomus riparius. Even though the swarms do not show an overall polarisation, we find statistical evidence for local clusters of correlated motion. We also show that the swarms display an effective large-scale potential that keeps individuals bound together, and we characterize the shape of this potential. Our results provide quantitative data against which the emergent characteristics of animal aggregation models can be benchmarked.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 130 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 4%
Austria 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 118 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 38 29%
Researcher 24 18%
Student > Master 21 16%
Student > Bachelor 8 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 5%
Other 21 16%
Unknown 11 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Physics and Astronomy 31 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 22%
Engineering 28 22%
Computer Science 11 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Other 10 8%
Unknown 19 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 49. 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 May 2021.
All research outputs
#540,909
of 17,864,600 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#6,143
of 96,530 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,946
of 258,892 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#7
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,864,600 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 96,530 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 258,892 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 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.