↓ 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 (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

14 news outlets
6 blogs
48 X users
8 Facebook pages
1 Wikipedia page
2 Google+ users
1 Redditor
3 YouTube creators


29 Dimensions

Readers on

72 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 48 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 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 69 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 16 22%
Student > Master 8 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 15 21%
Unknown 16 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 42 58%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 7%
Environmental Science 2 3%
Engineering 2 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 3%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 17 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 195. 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 01 June 2023.
All research outputs
of 25,971,360 outputs
Outputs from Science Advances
of 12,678 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 287,416 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science Advances
of 96 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,971,360 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 12,678 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 119.7. 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 287,416 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 96 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.