↓ Skip to main content

Faster is not always better: selection on growth rate fluctuates across life history and environments.

Overview of attention for article published in The American Naturalist, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 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
Faster is not always better: selection on growth rate fluctuates across life history and environments.
Published in
The American Naturalist, April 2014
DOI 10.1086/676006
Pubmed ID
Authors

Keyne Monro, Dustin J Marshall

Abstract

Growth rate is increasingly recognized as a key life-history trait that may affect fitness directly rather than evolve as a by-product of selection on size or age. An ongoing challenge is to explain the abundant levels of phenotypic and genetic variation in growth rates often seen in natural populations, despite what is expected to be consistently strong selection on this trait. Such a paradox suggests limits to how contemporary growth rates evolve. We explored limits arising from variation in selection, based on selection differentials for age-specific growth rates expressed under different ecological conditions. We present results from a field experiment that measured growth rates and reproductive output in wild individuals of a colonial marine invertebrate (Hippopodina iririkiensis), replicated within and across the natural range of succession in its local community. Colony growth rates varied phenotypically throughout this range, but not all such variation was available for selection, nor was it always targeted by selection as expected. While the maintenance of both phenotypic and genetic variation in growth rate is often attributed to costs of growing rapidly, our study highlights the potential for fluctuating selection pressures throughout the life history and across environments to play an important role in this process.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 5%
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 68 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 27%
Researcher 18 24%
Professor 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Other 6 8%
Other 13 17%
Unknown 5 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 55 73%
Environmental Science 7 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 3%
Mathematics 1 1%
Other 1 1%
Unknown 7 9%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 14 June 2014.
All research outputs
#16,048,318
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from The American Naturalist
#3,238
of 3,993 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131,880
of 241,751 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The American Naturalist
#32
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,993 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 241,751 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.