↓ Skip to main content

Mechanisms driving the density–area relationship in a saproxylic beetle

Overview of attention for article published in Oecologia, June 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
Title
Mechanisms driving the density–area relationship in a saproxylic beetle
Published in
Oecologia, June 2013
DOI 10.1007/s00442-013-2697-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Heather B. Jackson, Amanuel Zeccarias, James T. Cronin

Abstract

Mechanisms underlying density-area relationships (correlations between population density and patch size) have rarely been tested experimentally. It is often assumed that higher density on large patches is evidence that large patches are high quality (i.e. have greater survival and reproduction), but the same pattern could result from disproportionate movement from small to large patches. Movement-based and within-patch processes must be experimentally separated to show that large patches are indeed of higher quality, but few studies have done so. We experimentally tested movement-based and within-patch hypotheses to explain the positive density-area relationship observed for a saproxylic (decayed wood-dependent) beetle, Odontotaenius disjunctus Illiger (Coleoptera: Passalidae). In separate experiments we quantified (1) immigration into and (2) finite growth rate within logs (=patches) that varied in size and density of conspecific beetles. A log was 11.7-fold [95 % confidence interval (CI) 3.4-40.8) and 10.5-fold (95 % CI 2.7-40.9) more likely to contain a new immigrant if it was large or contained a conspecific pair of beetles, respectively. Neither log size nor conspecific density was associated with changes in finite growth rate that would lead to higher density: decreased log size and increased conspecific density reduced finite growth rate in direct proportion to the loss in available resources per mating pair. We conclude that movement behavior rather than habitat quality is responsible for the positive density-area relationship for O. disjunctus. An important implication of our results is that population density is an imperfect indicator of habitat quality.

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 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 7%
United States 2 7%
Brazil 1 3%
Portugal 1 3%
Spain 1 3%
Italy 1 3%
Unknown 21 72%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 28%
Student > Bachelor 5 17%
Researcher 4 14%
Student > Master 4 14%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 2 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 69%
Environmental Science 4 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 3%
Engineering 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 7%
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 02 December 2013.
All research outputs
#20,210,424
of 22,731,677 outputs
Outputs from Oecologia
#3,979
of 4,207 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#171,234
of 195,213 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oecologia
#32
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,731,677 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,207 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 195,213 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.