↓ Skip to main content

Fossils reject climate change as the cause of extinction of Caribbean bats.

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, January 2015
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 (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
20 tweeters
facebook
11 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
Title
Fossils reject climate change as the cause of extinction of Caribbean bats.
Published in
Scientific Reports, January 2015
DOI 10.1038/srep07971
Pubmed ID
Authors

J. Angel Soto-Centeno, David W. Steadman

Abstract

We combined novel radiocarbon dates of bat fossils with time-scaled ecological niche models (ENM) to study bat extinctions in the Caribbean. Radiocarbon-dated fossils show that late Quaternary losses of bat populations took place during the late Holocene (<4 ka) rather than late Pleistocene (>10 ka). All bat radiocarbon dates from Abaco (Bahamas) that represent extirpated populations are younger than 4 ka. We include data on six bat species, three of which are Caribbean endemics, and include nectarivores as well as insectivores. Climate-based ENMs from the Last Glacial Maximum to the present reflect overall stability in distributions, with suitable climatic habitat being present over time. In the absence of radiocarbon dates, bat extinctions had been presumed to take place during the last glacial-interglacial transition (ca. 10 ka). Now we see that extirpation of bats on these tropical islands is more complex than previously thought and primarily postdates the major climate changes that took place during the late Pleistocene-Holocene transition.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 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 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 8%
Mexico 1 3%
Italy 1 3%
France 1 3%
Romania 1 3%
Canada 1 3%
Unknown 30 79%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 39%
Researcher 6 16%
Student > Master 5 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Other 5 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 45%
Environmental Science 8 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 11%
Engineering 3 8%
Unspecified 3 8%
Other 3 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 19 February 2015.
All research outputs
#368,661
of 11,321,486 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#4,141
of 48,109 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,446
of 250,889 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#79
of 1,022 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,321,486 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 48,109 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 250,889 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,022 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 92% of its contemporaries.