| Title |
Surface Sensing and Settlement Strategies of Marine Biofouling Organisms
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Biointerphases, October 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13758-012-0063-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
A. Rosenhahn, G. H. Sendra |
| Abstract |
This review article summarizes some recent insights into the strategies used by marine organisms to select surfaces for colonization. While larger organisms rely on their sensory machinery to select surfaces, smaller microorganisms developed less complex but still effective ways to probe interfaces. Two examples, zoospores of algae and barnacle larvae, are discussed and both appear to have build-in test mechanisms to distinguish surfaces with different physicochemical properties. Some systematic studies on the influence of surface cues on exploration, settlement and adhesion are summarized. The intriguing notion that surface colonization resembles a parallelized surface sensing event is discussed towards its complementarity with conventional surface analytical tools. The strategy to populate only selected surfaces seems advantageous as waves, currents and storms constantly challenge adherent soft and hard fouling organism. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Turkey | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| South Africa | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 86 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 25% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 16% |
| Researcher | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 8% |
| Other | 9 | 10% |
| Unknown | 12 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 22 | 25% |
| Engineering | 13 | 15% |
| Materials Science | 9 | 10% |
| Environmental Science | 8 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 15 | 17% |
| Unknown | 16 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 05 January 2013.
All research outputs
#16,252,483
of 23,947,846 outputs
Outputs from Biointerphases
#388
of 544 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,258
of 186,256 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biointerphases
#3
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,947,846 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 544 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 186,256 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.