↓ Skip to main content

Adaptive Avoidance of Reef Noise

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, February 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
202 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
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
Adaptive Avoidance of Reef Noise
Published in
PLOS ONE, February 2011
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0016625
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephen D. Simpson, Andrew N. Radford, Edward J. Tickle, Mark G. Meekan, Andrew G. Jeffs

Abstract

Auditory information is widely used throughout the animal kingdom in both terrestrial and aquatic environments. Some marine species are dependent on reefs for adult survival and reproduction, and are known to use reef noise to guide orientation towards suitable habitat. Many others that forage in food-rich inshore waters would, however, benefit from avoiding the high density of predators resident on reefs, but nothing is known about whether acoustic cues are used in this context. By analysing a sample of nearly 700,000 crustaceans, caught during experimental playbacks in light traps in the Great Barrier Reef lagoon, we demonstrate an auditory capability in a broad suite of previously neglected taxa, and provide the first evidence in any marine organisms that reef noise can act as a deterrent. In contrast to the larvae of species that require reef habitat for future success, which showed an attraction to broadcasted reef noise, taxa with a pelagic or nocturnally emergent lifestyle actively avoided it. Our results suggest that a far greater range of invertebrate taxa than previously thought can respond to acoustic cues, emphasising yet further the potential negative impact of globally increasing levels of underwater anthropogenic noise.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 202 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Netherlands 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Tanzania, United Republic of 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 190 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 38 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 17%
Researcher 28 14%
Student > Master 28 14%
Other 14 7%
Other 28 14%
Unknown 31 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 86 43%
Environmental Science 42 21%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 12 6%
Social Sciences 5 2%
Psychology 3 1%
Other 15 7%
Unknown 39 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 20 May 2023.
All research outputs
#3,696,850
of 22,653,392 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#45,702
of 193,422 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,939
of 182,630 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#332
of 1,246 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,653,392 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,422 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 182,630 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,246 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 73% of its contemporaries.