↓ Skip to main content

Estimating thermal performance curves from repeated field observations

Overview of attention for article published in Ecology, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 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
Estimating thermal performance curves from repeated field observations
Published in
Ecology, May 2017
DOI 10.1002/ecy.1801
Pubmed ID
Authors

Evan S. Childress, Benjamin H. Letcher

Abstract

Estimating thermal performance of organisms is critical for understanding population distributions and dynamics and predicting responses to climate change. Typically, performance curves are estimated using laboratory studies to isolate temperature effects, but other abiotic and biotic factors influence temperature-performance relationships in nature reducing these models' predictive ability. We present a model for estimating thermal performance curves from repeated field observations that includes environmental and individual variation. We fit the model in a Bayesian framework using MCMC sampling, which allowed for estimation of unobserved latent growth while propagating uncertainty. Fitting the model to simulated data varying in sampling design and parameter values demonstrated that the parameter estimates were accurate, precise, and unbiased. Fitting the model to individual growth data from wild trout revealed high out-of-sample predictive ability relative to laboratory-derived models, which produced more biased predictions for field performance. The field-based estimates of thermal maxima were lower than those based on laboratory studies. Under warming temperature scenarios, field-derived performance models predicted stronger declines in body size than laboratory-derived models, suggesting that laboratory-based models may underestimate climate change effects. The presented model estimates true, realized field performance, avoiding assumptions required for applying laboratory-based models to field performance, which should improve estimates of performance under climate change and advance thermal ecology. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 73 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 32%
Researcher 18 24%
Student > Master 6 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 7%
Professor 4 5%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 9 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 31 42%
Environmental Science 22 30%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 1%
Social Sciences 1 1%
Unknown 19 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 17 March 2017.
All research outputs
#16,083,464
of 24,471,305 outputs
Outputs from Ecology
#5,631
of 6,817 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#190,109
of 315,149 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ecology
#102
of 123 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,471,305 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,817 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 315,149 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 123 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.