↓ Skip to main content

Testing metabolic theories.

Overview of attention for article published in The American Naturalist, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
77 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
197 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
Testing metabolic theories.
Published in
The American Naturalist, October 2012
DOI 10.1086/667860
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael R Kearney, Craig R White

Abstract

Metabolism is the process by which individual organisms acquire energy and materials from their environment and use them for maintenance, differentiation, growth, and reproduction. There has been a recent push to build an individual-based metabolic underpinning into ecological theory-that is, a metabolic theory of ecology. However, the two main theories of individual metabolism that have been applied in ecology-Kooijman's dynamic energy budget (DEB) theory and the West, Brown, and Enquist (WBE) theory-have fundamentally different assumptions. Surprisingly, the core assumptions of these two theories have not been rigorously compared from an empirical perspective. Before we can build an understanding of ecology on the basis of individual metabolism, we must resolve the differences between these theories and thus set the appropriate foundation. Here we compare the DEB and WBE theories in detail as applied to ontogenetic growth and metabolic scaling, from which we identify circumstances where their predictions diverge most strongly. Promising experimental areas include manipulative studies of tissue regeneration, body shape, body condition, temperature, and oxygen. Much empirical work designed specifically with DEB and WBE theory in mind is required before any consensus can be reached on the appropriate theoretical basis for a metabolic theory of ecology.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 197 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 8 4%
France 2 1%
Mexico 2 1%
Brazil 2 1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Other 3 2%
Unknown 175 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 48 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 47 24%
Student > Master 23 12%
Professor 15 8%
Student > Bachelor 12 6%
Other 27 14%
Unknown 25 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 106 54%
Environmental Science 36 18%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 5 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 2%
Engineering 4 2%
Other 12 6%
Unknown 30 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 09 August 2019.
All research outputs
#5,240,498
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from The American Naturalist
#1,332
of 3,993 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,697
of 191,706 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The American Naturalist
#12
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,993 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 191,706 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.