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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Spatial sorting promotes the spread of maladaptive hybridization
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Trends in Ecology & Evolution, June 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.tree.2015.05.008 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Winsor H. Lowe, Clint C. Muhlfeld, Fred W. Allendorf |
| Abstract |
Invasive hybridization is causing loss of biodiversity worldwide. The spread of such introgression can occur even when hybrids have reduced Darwinian fitness, which decreases the frequency of hybrids due to low survival or reproduction through time. This paradox can be partially explained by spatial sorting, where genotypes associated with dispersal increase in frequency at the edge of expansion, fueling further expansion and allowing invasive hybrids to increase in frequency through space rather than time. Furthermore, because all progeny of a hybrid will be hybrids (i.e., will possess genes from both parental taxa), nonnative admixture in invaded populations can increase even when most hybrid progeny do not survive. Broader understanding of spatial sorting is needed to protect native biodiversity. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 40% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Scientists | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 120 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 30 | 24% |
| Researcher | 20 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 7% |
| Other | 19 | 15% |
| Unknown | 21 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 76 | 61% |
| Environmental Science | 10 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 4% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 3 | 2% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 2% |
| Unknown | 26 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 19 April 2016.
All research outputs
#8,534,976
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Trends in Ecology & Evolution
#2,321
of 3,201 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,366
of 278,180 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trends in Ecology & Evolution
#27
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,201 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 31.8. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 278,180 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 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.