↓ Skip to main content

Growth in Nephrops norvegicus from a tag-recapture experiment

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 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
Growth in Nephrops norvegicus from a tag-recapture experiment
Published in
Scientific Reports, October 2016
DOI 10.1038/srep35143
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paula S. Haynes, Patricia Browne, Liam Fullbrook, Conor T. Graham, Lee Hancox, Mark P. Johnson, Valentina Lauria, Anne Marie Power

Abstract

Nephrops norvegicus is a commercially valuable fishery in the EU but management of stocks is challenging due to difficulties in aging individuals and calculating growth and biomass production. Growth of N. norvegicus was estimated by releasing 1177 tagged individuals in western Ireland in Summer 2013 and recapturing these in 2014 (n = 207, an average of 344 days later) and 2015 (n = 38, 654-665 days later). Moulting occurred twice per year in approximately half of the males and only once in females. Mean growth increments after approximately one year were 5.1 mm Carapace Length (CL) in males and 1.4 mm CL in females. After two years, males had grown by 12.0 mm CL and females by 4.6 mm CL, on average, across size classes. Low variation in growth increments was seen across female size classes, but significantly lower growth was observed in larger males, meeting an important assumption of the Von Bertalanffy Growth Function. Asymptotic carapace lengths were 70.8 mm (males) and 55.2 mm (females) with respective growth constants (k) of 0.161 yr(-1) and 0.077 yr(-1). The results suggest that this is a very productive fishery and that survivability of returns from creel fishing is high.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 14%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Student > Master 2 9%
Professor 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 7 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 32%
Environmental Science 6 27%
Mathematics 1 5%
Unknown 8 36%
Attention Score in Context

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 12 October 2016.
All research outputs
#18,475,157
of 22,893,031 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#93,583
of 123,706 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#242,200
of 320,020 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#2,651
of 3,513 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,893,031 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 123,706 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. 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 320,020 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,513 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.