↓ Skip to main content

Effects of microtopographic variation and macroalgal cover on morphometrics and survival of the annual form of eelgrass (Zostera marina)

Overview of attention for article published in Aquatic Botany, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 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
Effects of microtopographic variation and macroalgal cover on morphometrics and survival of the annual form of eelgrass (Zostera marina)
Published in
Aquatic Botany, February 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.aquabot.2017.11.008
Pubmed ID
Authors

W.G. Nelson, G. Sullivan

Abstract

A disjunct population of the annual form of the seagrass Zostera marina that occurred in the upper intertidal zone of Yaquina Bay, Oregon was sampled to determine whether there were differences in recruitment, growth, survivorship and morphology associated with microtopographic location on the sand flat. Population responses of seagrass found in areas differing by only a few cm in vertical elevation were compared. There was higher plant abundance and higher number of shoots per plant in microtopographic low areas. Plants in lower areas also had significantly longer shoots, greater total above ground biomass, greater biomass per shoot, and greater biomass of reproductive spathes than plants growing in immediately adjacent, microtopographic high areas. Cover of green macroalgae was higher and accumulated more rapidly in microtopographic high areas as compared to low areas, and both spatially and temporally was correlated with decreased recruitment and increased plant loss in these slightly elevated areas. While impacts of desiccation may have played some role in determining the influence of microtopographic variation on the annual Z. marina population, macroalgal effects appear to be predominant.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 41%
Student > Bachelor 3 18%
Student > Master 2 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 6%
Unknown 4 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 47%
Environmental Science 4 24%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 6%
Unknown 4 24%
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 18 December 2017.
All research outputs
#20,663,600
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Aquatic Botany
#657
of 807 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#343,060
of 448,812 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Aquatic Botany
#7
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 807 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 448,812 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.