↓ Skip to main content

Reef flattening effects on total richness and species responses in the Caribbean

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Animal Ecology, September 2015
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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
7 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
78 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
245 Mendeley
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
Reef flattening effects on total richness and species responses in the Caribbean
Published in
Journal of Animal Ecology, September 2015
DOI 10.1111/1365-2656.12429
Pubmed ID
Authors

Steven P Newman, Erik H Meesters, Charlie S Dryden, Stacey M Williams, Cristina Sanchez, Peter J Mumby, Nicholas V C Polunin

Abstract

There has been ongoing flattening of Caribbean coral reefs with the loss of habitat having severe implications for these systems. Complexity and its structural components are important to fish species richness and community composition, but little is known about its role for other taxa or species-specific responses. This study reveals the importance of reef habitat complexity and structural components to different taxa of macrofauna, total species richness, and individual coral and fish species in the Caribbean. Species presence and richness of different taxa were visually quantified in one hundred 25-m(2) plots in three marine reserves in the Caribbean. Sampling was evenly distributed across five levels of visually estimated reef complexity, with five structural components also recorded: the number of corals, number of large corals, slope angle, maximum sponge and maximum octocoral height. Taking advantage of natural heterogeneity in structural complexity within a particular coral reef habitat (Orbicella reefs) and discrete environmental envelope, thus minimizing other sources of variability, the relative importance of reef complexity and structural components was quantified for different taxa and individual fish and coral species on Caribbean coral reefs using boosted regression trees (BRTs). Boosted regression tree models performed very well when explaining variability in total (82·3%), coral (80·6%) and fish species richness (77·3%), for which the greatest declines in richness occurred below intermediate reef complexity levels. Complexity accounted for very little of the variability in octocorals, sponges, arthropods, annelids or anemones. BRTs revealed species-specific variability and importance for reef complexity and structural components. Coral and fish species occupancy generally declined at low complexity levels, with the exception of two coral species (Pseudodiploria strigosa and Porites divaricata) and four fish species (Halichoeres bivittatus, H. maculipinna, Malacoctenus triangulatus and Stegastes partitus) more common at lower reef complexity levels. A significant interaction between country and reef complexity revealed a non-additive decline in species richness in areas of low complexity and the reserve in Puerto Rico. Flattening of Caribbean coral reefs will result in substantial species losses, with few winners. Individual structural components have considerable value to different species, and their loss may have profound impacts on population responses of coral and fish due to identity effects of key species, which underpin population richness and resilience and may affect essential ecosystem processes and services.

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 245 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 1%
Jamaica 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 239 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 48 20%
Student > Master 47 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 13%
Student > Bachelor 30 12%
Other 12 5%
Other 28 11%
Unknown 49 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 98 40%
Environmental Science 62 25%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 7 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 3%
Engineering 5 2%
Other 10 4%
Unknown 56 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 01 August 2018.
All research outputs
#1,633,244
of 24,542,484 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Animal Ecology
#559
of 3,155 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,104
of 272,844 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Animal Ecology
#7
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,542,484 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,155 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 272,844 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.