↓ Skip to main content
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 (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

14 news outlets
6 blogs
53 tweeters
6 Facebook pages
1 Wikipedia page
2 Google+ users
1 Redditor
3 video uploaders


21 Dimensions

Readers on

68 Mendeley
Nectar uptake in bats using a pumping-tongue mechanism
Published in
Science Advances, September 2015
DOI 10.1126/sciadv.1500525
Pubmed ID

Marco Tschapka, Tania P. Gonzalez-Terrazas, Mirjam Knörnschild


Many insects use nectar as their principal diet and have mouthparts specialized in nectarivory, whereas most nectar-feeding vertebrates are opportunistic users of floral resources and only a few species show distinct morphological specializations. Specialized nectar-feeding bats extract nectar from flowers using elongated tongues that correspond to two vastly different morphologies: Most species have tongues with hair-like papillae, whereas one group has almost hairless tongues that show distinct lateral grooves. Recent molecular data indicate a convergent evolution of groove- and hair-tongued bat clades into the nectar-feeding niche. Using high-speed video recordings on experimental feeders, we show distinctly divergent nectar-feeding behavior in clades. Grooved tongues are held in contact with nectar for the entire duration of visit as nectar is pumped into the mouths of hovering bats, whereas hairy tongues are used in conventional sinusoidal lapping movements. Bats with grooved tongues use a specific fluid uptake mechanism not known from any other mammal. Nectar rises in semiopen lateral grooves, probably driven by a combination of tongue deformation and capillary action. Extraction efficiency declined for both tongue types with a similar slope toward deeper nectar levels. Our results highlight a novel drinking mechanism in mammals and raise further questions on fluid mechanics and ecological niche partitioning.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 53 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 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 65 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 16 24%
Student > Master 8 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 7%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 13 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 40 59%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 7%
Environmental Science 2 3%
Physics and Astronomy 2 3%
Engineering 2 3%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 14 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 198. 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 12 April 2022.
All research outputs
of 23,342,092 outputs
Outputs from Science Advances
of 10,155 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 268,100 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science Advances
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,342,092 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,155 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 121.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 268,100 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.