↓ Skip to main content

Biodiversity and invasibility in grassland microcosms

Overview of attention for article published in Oecologia, February 2001
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 (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
265 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
390 Mendeley
Title
Biodiversity and invasibility in grassland microcosms
Published in
Oecologia, February 2001
DOI 10.1007/s004420000549
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeffrey S. Dukes

Abstract

In the years since Charles Elton proposed that more diverse communities should be less susceptible to invasion by exotic species, empirical studies have both supported and refuted Elton's hypothesis. Here, I use grassland community microcosms to test the effect of functional diversity on the success of an invasive annual weed (Centaurea solstitialis L.). I found that high functional diversity reduced the success of Centaurea by reducing resource availability. An equally important, but unstudied, question is whether diversity can buffer a community against the impacts of invasive species. In this experiment, although species diversity (independent of functional diversity) did not affect the success of the invader, the invader suppressed growth of species-poor communities more strongly. Invasion of Centaurea also increased summer evapotranspiration in species-poor communities. These results suggest that loss of species diversity alone does not affect community invasibility, but that communities with fewer species may be more likely to decline as a consequence of invasion.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 390 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 9 2%
Brazil 5 1%
South Africa 4 1%
Switzerland 3 <1%
Germany 3 <1%
Australia 2 <1%
France 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Other 6 2%
Unknown 352 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 77 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 66 17%
Student > Master 57 15%
Student > Bachelor 35 9%
Professor 30 8%
Other 92 24%
Unknown 33 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 200 51%
Environmental Science 115 29%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 14 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 1%
Engineering 3 <1%
Other 11 3%
Unknown 43 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 20 July 2017.
All research outputs
#3,300,930
of 22,955,959 outputs
Outputs from Oecologia
#626
of 4,226 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,622
of 113,830 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oecologia
#3
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,955,959 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,226 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 113,830 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.