Global environmental change is altering the patterns of biodiversity worldwide. Observation and theory suggest that species' distributions and abundances depend on a suite of processes, notably abiotic filtering and biotic interactions, both of which are constrained by species' phylogenetic history. Models predicting species distribution have historically mostly considered abiotic filtering and are only starting to integrate biotic interaction. However, using information on present interactions to forecast the future of biodiversity supposes that biotic interactions will not change when species are confronted with new environments. Using bacterial microcosms, we illustrate how biotic interactions can vary along an environmental gradient and how this variability can depend on the phylogenetic distance between interacting species.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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
#6,311,540
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from Biology Letters
#2,276
of 3,275 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,164
of 300,061 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biology Letters
#56
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,275 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 55.3. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 300,061 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
