| Title |
Genetic population structure of polychaeta Neanthes glandicincta (Nereididae) of the Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site, Hong Kong
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Ecotoxicology, May 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10646-015-1465-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ping-Ping Shen, Ji-Dong Gu |
| Abstract |
Neanthes glandicincta (Nereididae, Polychaeta) is the first numerically dominant benthic infauna in the Mai Po international Ramsar site, Hong Kong and also an economically important species for food source of birds and fishes. In present study, highly conserved nuclear ribosomal DNA (SSU and LSU rDNA) and mitochondrial COI gene were employed to study the population structure of N. glandicincta in the subtropical mudflat. The specimens were collected from five localities in February 2006, February-August 2007 and preserved at -80 °C, methanol or formalin, respectively. DNA extraction efficiency was the highest in fresh materials and lowest in formalin-fixed samples. The 18S (1774 bp), 28S D1 (383 bp) and COI genes were sequenced and analyzed. Both 18S and 28S D1 rDNA were highly conserved and showed no difference among the populations, whereas COI gene exhibited relatively high-level intraspecific polymorphism (2.2 %). The population from onshore and near mangrove station was phylogenetic different from other sites, indicating restricted gene exchange between the region of river mouth and mangrove forest. The mangrove may form a barrier for the dispersal of pelagic/benthic larvae of the population, which indicates that the population genetic difference is related to different habitats. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 22 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 14% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 14% |
| Professor | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 3 | 14% |
| Unknown | 5 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 32% |
| Chemistry | 3 | 14% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 2 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Unknown | 6 | 27% |
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 12 May 2015.
All research outputs
#20,271,607
of 22,803,211 outputs
Outputs from Ecotoxicology
#971
of 1,475 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#222,203
of 264,552 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ecotoxicology
#40
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,803,211 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 1,475 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. 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 264,552 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 57 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.