↓ Skip to main content

Can a Threshold Value Be Used to Classify Chondrichthyan Reproductive Modes: Systematic Review and Validation Using an Oviparous Species

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, December 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 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
Can a Threshold Value Be Used to Classify Chondrichthyan Reproductive Modes: Systematic Review and Validation Using an Oviparous Species
Published in
PLOS ONE, December 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0050196
Pubmed ID
Authors

Holly A. Frazer, Megan Ellis, Charlie Huveneers

Abstract

The maternal-embryonic nutritional relationship in chondrichthyans has been poorly explored. Consequently, accurately discerning between their different reproductive modes is difficult; especially lecithotrophy and incipient histotrophy. This present study is the first to assess changes in mass throughout embryonic development of an oviparous chondrichthyan other than Scyliorhinus canicula. Heterodontus portusjacksoni egg cases were collected and used to quantify the gain or loss of wet mass, dry mass, water content, inorganic and organic matter from freshly deposited eggs (without macroscopically visible embryos) to near full-term embryos. A loss in organic mass of ~40% found from this study is approximately double the values previously obtained for S. canicula. This raises concerns for the validity of the current threshold value used to discern between lecithotrophic and matrotrophic species. Accordingly, 26 studies published in the primary literature between 1932 and 2012 addressing the maternal-embryonic nutritional relationship in sharks were reviewed. Values for changes in mass reported for over 20 different shark species were synthesised and recalculated, revealing multiple typographical, transcribing, calculation and rounding errors across many papers. These results suggest that the current threshold value of -20% established by previous studies is invalid and should be avoided to ascertain the reproductive mode of aplacental viviparous species.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
New Zealand 1 3%
Chile 1 3%
Unknown 32 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 29%
Student > Bachelor 6 18%
Student > Master 4 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 9%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 4 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 62%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 9%
Environmental Science 2 6%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 4 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 21 November 2019.
All research outputs
#6,386,541
of 22,693,205 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#76,533
of 193,724 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,563
of 280,467 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,536
of 4,823 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,693,205 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,724 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 280,467 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,823 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.