↓ Skip to main content

Paradoxical selective feeding on a low-nutrient diet: why do mangrove crabs eat leaves?

Overview of attention for article published in Oecologia, March 2002
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
126 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
174 Mendeley
Title
Paradoxical selective feeding on a low-nutrient diet: why do mangrove crabs eat leaves?
Published in
Oecologia, March 2002
DOI 10.1007/s00442-001-0847-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Martin W. Skov, Richard G. Hartnoll

Abstract

Sesarmid crabs dominate Indo West-Pacific mangroves, and consume large amounts of mangrove litter. This is surprising, since mangrove leaves have high tannin contents and C/N ratios that far exceed 17, normally taken as the maximum for sustainable animal nutrition. This paradox has led to the hitherto untested hypothesis that crabs let leaves age in burrows before consumption, thereby reducing tannin content and C/N ratio. We excavated burrows of Neosarmatium meinerti within high-shore Avicennia marina mangroves, and investigated whether burrow leaves had C, N or C/N values significantly different from those of senescent leaves. Leaves were found in <45% of burrows, mostly only as small fragments, and N concentrations and C/N ratios of burrow leaves never varied significantly from senescent leaves. The leaf-ageing hypothesis was therefore not supported. In the field N. meinerti and Sesarma guttatum fed on sediment in 76% and 66-69% of observations, respectively, and on leaves in <10% of observations. Sediments from two A. marina mangroves had a mean C/N ratio of 19.6. Our results, and the literature, show that mangrove leaves are unlikely to fulfil the N requirements of crabs, whether or not leaf ageing takes place. Sediment detritus could be a richer source of N, as shown by lower C/N ratios and regular ingestion by crabs. By fragmenting leaves crabs may be elevating the nutritional quality of the substrate detritus.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 174 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 5 3%
United States 3 2%
Germany 1 <1%
Uruguay 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Vietnam 1 <1%
Papua New Guinea 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Singapore 1 <1%
Other 2 1%
Unknown 157 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 38 22%
Student > Master 35 20%
Student > Bachelor 22 13%
Researcher 16 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 6%
Other 34 20%
Unknown 18 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 85 49%
Environmental Science 50 29%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 10 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 1%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 25 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 06 November 2021.
All research outputs
#6,411,787
of 22,780,967 outputs
Outputs from Oecologia
#1,415
of 4,210 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,851
of 45,971 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oecologia
#3
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,780,967 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,210 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 45,971 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.