↓ Skip to main content

Model fit versus biological relevance: Evaluating photosynthesis-temperature models for three tropical seagrass species

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
112 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
Model fit versus biological relevance: Evaluating photosynthesis-temperature models for three tropical seagrass species
Published in
Scientific Reports, January 2017
DOI 10.1038/srep39930
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew P. Adams, Catherine J. Collier, Sven Uthicke, Yan X. Ow, Lucas Langlois, Katherine R. O’Brien

Abstract

When several models can describe a biological process, the equation that best fits the data is typically considered the best. However, models are most useful when they also possess biologically-meaningful parameters. In particular, model parameters should be stable, physically interpretable, and transferable to other contexts, e.g. for direct indication of system state, or usage in other model types. As an example of implementing these recommended requirements for model parameters, we evaluated twelve published empirical models for temperature-dependent tropical seagrass photosynthesis, based on two criteria: (1) goodness of fit, and (2) how easily biologically-meaningful parameters can be obtained. All models were formulated in terms of parameters characterising the thermal optimum (Topt) for maximum photosynthetic rate (Pmax). These parameters indicate the upper thermal limits of seagrass photosynthetic capacity, and hence can be used to assess the vulnerability of seagrass to temperature change. Our study exemplifies an approach to model selection which optimises the usefulness of empirical models for both modellers and ecologists alike.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 111 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 30 27%
Student > Master 16 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 13%
Other 8 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 23 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 37 33%
Environmental Science 32 29%
Engineering 6 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 3 3%
Other 5 4%
Unknown 26 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 February 2017.
All research outputs
#3,079,734
of 22,925,760 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#26,153
of 123,840 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,736
of 421,125 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#840
of 3,829 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,925,760 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 123,840 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 421,125 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,829 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.