↓ Skip to main content

The role of gaping behaviour in habitat partitioning between coexisting intertidal mussels

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Ecology and Evolution, July 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
98 Mendeley
Title
The role of gaping behaviour in habitat partitioning between coexisting intertidal mussels
Published in
BMC Ecology and Evolution, July 2010
DOI 10.1186/1472-6785-10-17
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katy R Nicastro, Gerardo I Zardi, Christopher D McQuaid, Linda Stephens, Sarah Radloff, Gregory L Blatch

Abstract

Environmental heterogeneity plays a major role in invasion and coexistence dynamics. Habitat segregation between introduced species and their native competitors is usually described in terms of different physiological and behavioural abilities. However little attention has been paid to the effects of behaviour in habitat partitioning among invertebrates, partially because their behavioural repertoires, especially marine benthic taxa, are extremely limited. This study investigates the effect of gaping behaviour on habitat segregation of the two dominant mussel species living in South Africa, the invasive Mytilus galloprovincialis and the indigenous Perna perna. These two species show partial habitat segregation on the south coast of South Africa, the lower and upper areas of the mussel zone are dominated by P. perna and M. galloprovincialis respectively, with overlap in the middle zone. During emergence, intertidal mussels will either keep the valves closed, minimizing water loss and undergoing anaerobic metabolism, or will periodically open the valves maintaining a more efficient aerobic metabolism but increasing the risk of desiccation.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 3%
Portugal 1 1%
Colombia 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
South Africa 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 89 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 17%
Researcher 16 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 14%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Lecturer 6 6%
Other 21 21%
Unknown 17 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 45 46%
Environmental Science 20 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Engineering 2 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 1%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 16 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 22 September 2010.
All research outputs
#6,596,069
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#1,481
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,142
of 104,952 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#21
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,714 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 104,952 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 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 57% of its contemporaries.