↓ Skip to main content

Light triggers habitat choice of eyeless subterranean but not of eyed surface amphipods

Overview of attention for article published in The Science of Nature, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
Title
Light triggers habitat choice of eyeless subterranean but not of eyed surface amphipods
Published in
The Science of Nature, January 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00114-015-1329-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Žiga Fišer, Luka Novak, Roman Luštrik, Cene Fišer

Abstract

Boundaries of species distributions are the result of colonization-extinction processes. Survival on the boundary depends on how well individuals discriminate optimal from suboptimal habitat patches. Such behaviour is called habitat choice and was only rarely applied to macroecology, although it links species ecological niche and species distribution. Surface and subterranean aquatic species are spatially strongly segregated, even in the absence of physical barriers. We explored whether a behavioural response to light functions as a habitat choice mechanism that could explain species turnover between surface and subterranean aquatic ecosystems. In a controlled laboratory experiment, we studied the behavioural response to light of ten pairs of surface and subterranean amphipods that permanently co-occur in springs. Surface species showed a weak photophobic, photoneutral, and in one case, photophilic response, whereas all subterranean species showed a strong photophobic response. Eyeless subterranean but not eyed surface amphipods appear to orient themselves with light cues. On a local scale, this difference possibly diminishes harmful interactions between the co-occurring amphipods, whereas on a regional scale, photophobia could explain limited dispersal and a high degree of endemism observed among subterranean species.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 27%
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Student > Master 4 13%
Researcher 4 13%
Other 2 7%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 5 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 60%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 13%
Environmental Science 2 7%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Unknown 5 17%
Attention Score in Context

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 August 2022.
All research outputs
#16,031,680
of 23,794,258 outputs
Outputs from The Science of Nature
#1,865
of 2,195 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,856
of 399,135 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Science of Nature
#15
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,794,258 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,195 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.5. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 399,135 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.