↓ Skip to main content

Oxygen-induced plasticity in tracheal morphology and discontinuous gas exchange cycles in cockroaches Nauphoeta cinerea

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Comparative Physiology B, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
18 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
Oxygen-induced plasticity in tracheal morphology and discontinuous gas exchange cycles in cockroaches Nauphoeta cinerea
Published in
Journal of Comparative Physiology B, November 2014
DOI 10.1007/s00360-014-0862-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hamish Bartrim, Philip G. D. Matthews, Sussan Lemon, Craig R. White

Abstract

The function and mechanism underlying discontinuous gas exchange in terrestrial arthropods continues to be debated. Three adaptive hypotheses have been proposed to explain the evolutionary origin or maintenance of discontinuous gas exchange cycles (DGCs), which may have evolved to reduce respiratory water loss, facilitate gas exchange in high CO2 and low O2 micro-environments, or to ameliorate potential damage as a result of oversupply of O2. None of these hypotheses have unequivocal support, and several non-adaptive hypotheses have also been proposed. In the present study, we reared cockroaches Nauphoeta cinerea in selected levels of O2 throughout development, and examined how this affected growth rate, tracheal morphology and patterns of gas exchange. O2 level in the rearing environment caused significant changes in tracheal morphology and the exhibition of DGCs, but the direction of these effects was inconsistent with all three adaptive hypotheses: water loss was not associated with DGC length, cockroaches grew fastest in hyperoxia, and DGCs exhibited by cockroaches reared in normoxia were shorter than those exhibited by cockroaches reared in hypoxia or hyperoxia.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 33%
Student > Master 4 22%
Researcher 2 11%
Lecturer 1 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 3 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 56%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 11%
Engineering 1 6%
Unknown 3 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 08 November 2014.
All research outputs
#21,866,582
of 24,395,432 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Comparative Physiology B
#744
of 840 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#227,689
of 267,956 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Comparative Physiology B
#6
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,395,432 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 840 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 267,956 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.