↓ Skip to main content

Demands of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) in Daphnia: are they dependent on body size?

Overview of attention for article published in Oecologia, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
Title
Demands of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) in Daphnia: are they dependent on body size?
Published in
Oecologia, June 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00442-016-3675-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna B. Sikora, Thomas Petzoldt, Piotr Dawidowicz, Eric von Elert

Abstract

Fatty acids contribute to the nutritional quality of the phytoplankton and, thus, play an important role in Daphnia nutrition. One of the polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs)--eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA)--has been shown to predict carbon transfer between primary producers and consumers in lakes, suggesting that EPA limitation of Daphnia in nature is widespread. Although the demand for EPA must be covered by the diet, the demand of EPA in Daphnia that differ in body size has not been addressed yet. Here, we hypothesize that the demand for EPA in Daphnia is size-dependent and that bigger species have a higher EPA demand. To elucidate this, a growth experiment was conducted in which at 20 °C three Daphnia taxa (small-sized D. longispina complex, medium-sized D. pulicaria, and large-bodied D. magna) were fed Synechococcus elongatus supplemented with cholesterol and increasing concentrations of EPA. In addition, fatty acid analyses of Daphnia were performed. Our results show that the saturation threshold for EPA-dependent growth increased with increasing body size. This increase in thresholds with body size may provide another mechanism contributing to the prevalence of small-bodied cladocera in warm habitats and to the midsummer decline of large cladocera in eutrophic water bodies.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 6%
Unknown 30 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 28%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Student > Master 3 9%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 3 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 50%
Environmental Science 4 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 6%
Psychology 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 6 19%
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 28 June 2016.
All research outputs
#18,464,797
of 22,879,161 outputs
Outputs from Oecologia
#3,655
of 4,224 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#267,417
of 352,119 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oecologia
#34
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,879,161 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,224 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 352,119 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.