↓ Skip to main content

Effects of reduced water quality on coral reefs in and out of no‐take marine reserves

Overview of attention for article published in Conservation Biology, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
97 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
152 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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
Effects of reduced water quality on coral reefs in and out of no‐take marine reserves
Published in
Conservation Biology, September 2015
DOI 10.1111/cobi.12576
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amelia S Wenger, David H Williamson, Eduardo T da Silva, Daniela M Ceccarelli, Nicola K Browne, Caroline Petus, Michelle J Devlin

Abstract

Near-shore marine environments are increasingly subjected to reduced water quality and their ability to withstand it is critical to their persistence. The potential role that marine reserves may play in mitigating the effects of reduced water quality has received little attention. This study investigated the spatial and temporal variability in live coral and macro-algal cover and water quality, during moderate and major flooding events of the Fitzroy River within the Keppel Bay region of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park from 2007-2013. We quantified the exposure of coral reefs to flood plumes using seven years of remote sensing of water quality and coral reef long-term monitoring data. We used a distance linear model to partition the contribution of abiotic and biotic factors, including zoning, as drivers of the observed changes. Moderate flood plumes from 2007-2009 did not result in coral cover declines on reefs in the Keppel Islands, suggesting intrinsic resistance against short-term exposure to reduced water quality. However, from 2009-2013, live coral cover declined sharply following extended periods of high exposure to turbid, low salinity water from major flood plume events in 2011 and subsequent moderate events in 2012 and 2013. Importantly, the ability of the reefs to cope with moderate disturbances following a major flooding event was lost. Although zone (NTR or fished) was identified a significant driver of coral cover, we recorded consistently lower coral cover on reserve reefs than on fished reefs throughout the study period and significantly lower in 2011. Our findings suggest that even reefs with an inherent resistance to reduced water quality are not able to withstand repeated disturbance events. The limitations of reserves in mitigating the effects of reduced water quality on near-shore coral reefs underscores the importance of integrated management approaches that combine effective land-based management with networks of no-take reserves. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 152 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 <1%
Unknown 151 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 21%
Researcher 30 20%
Student > Master 22 14%
Student > Bachelor 16 11%
Other 7 5%
Other 16 11%
Unknown 29 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 43 28%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 40 26%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 11 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 5%
Engineering 4 3%
Other 13 9%
Unknown 34 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 15 January 2016.
All research outputs
#5,115,412
of 25,083,571 outputs
Outputs from Conservation Biology
#1,975
of 4,026 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,062
of 280,725 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Conservation Biology
#23
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,083,571 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,026 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 280,725 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.