| Title |
Multiple defender effects: synergistic coral defense by mutualist crustaceans
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Oecologia, February 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00442-012-2275-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
C. Seabird McKeon, Adrian C. Stier, Shelby E. McIlroy, Benjamin M. Bolker |
| Abstract |
The majority of our understanding of mutualisms comes from studies of pairwise interactions. However, many hosts support mutualist guilds, and interactions among mutualists make the prediction of aggregate effects difficult. Here, we apply a factorial experiment to interactions of 'guard' crustaceans that defend their coral host from seastar predators. Predation was reduced by the presence of mutualists (15% reduction in predation frequency and 45% in volume of coral consumed). The frequency of attacks with both mutualists was lower than with a single species, but it did not differ significantly from the expected frequency of independent effects. In contrast, the combined defensive efficacy of both mutualist species reduced the volume of coral tissue lost by 73%, significantly more than the 38% reduction expected from independent defensive efforts, suggesting the existence of a cooperative synergy in defensive behaviors of 'guard' crustaceans. These emergent 'multiple defender effects' are statistically and ecologically analogous to the emergent concept of 'multiple predator effects' known from the predation literature. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 3% |
| Iran, Islamic Republic of | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 92 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 24 | 25% |
| Researcher | 19 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 18 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 15 | 15% |
| Unknown | 6 | 6% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 54 | 56% |
| Environmental Science | 21 | 22% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 6% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 4 | 4% |
| Unknown | 9 | 9% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 31 May 2016.
All research outputs
#3,911,550
of 22,664,267 outputs
Outputs from Oecologia
#791
of 4,201 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,369
of 155,484 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oecologia
#4
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,664,267 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,201 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 155,484 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.