↓ Skip to main content

Shifts in the importance of the species pool and environmental controls of epiphytic bryophyte richness across multiple scales

Overview of attention for article published in Oecologia, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
Title
Shifts in the importance of the species pool and environmental controls of epiphytic bryophyte richness across multiple scales
Published in
Oecologia, January 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00442-018-4066-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nagore G. Medina, Matthew A. Bowker, Joaquín Hortal, Vicente Mazimpaka, Francisco Lara

Abstract

Species richness is influenced by a nested set of environmental factors, but how do these factors interact across several scales? Our main aim is to disentangle the relative importance of environmental filters and the species pool on the richness of epiphytic bryophytes across spatial scales. To do so, we sampled epiphytic bryophytes in 43 oak forests across the northwest of the Iberian Peninsula. As predictors we used climate, descriptors of forest structure and micro-environment. We applied structural equation modeling to relate these variables with richness and cover at three scales: locality (forest), stand (three stands per forest), and sample (a quadrate in a tree). We assumed top-down relationships, so that large-scale variables influenced lower scale variables, and in which cover directly influenced richness. Richness at the next larger scale (locality to stand and stand to sample) is considered a surrogate of the species pool and included as a predictor of richness at the next smaller scale. Environmental variables explain locality richness, but as we decrease the spatial scale, its importance decreases and the dependence on species pool increases. In addition, we found unexpected bottom-up relationships (between micro-scale environment to locality richness). Our results point to the scale dependence of niche vs. neutral processes: niche processes are important at the locality (forest) scale, while neutral processes are significant at the small (sample) scale. We propose a modified conceptualization of the factors influencing biodiversity at different spatial scales by adding links across different scales (between micro-environment and locality-scale richness in our study).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 25%
Researcher 14 25%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Professor 2 4%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 9 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 33%
Environmental Science 13 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 5%
Mathematics 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 14 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 30 January 2018.
All research outputs
#6,053,555
of 23,016,919 outputs
Outputs from Oecologia
#1,315
of 4,236 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,840
of 441,922 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oecologia
#29
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,016,919 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,236 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 68% 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 441,922 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.