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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Effects of flow restoration on mussel growth in a Wild and Scenic North American River
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Aquatic Biosystems, March 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2046-9063-9-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Brandon J Sansom, Daniel J Hornbach, Mark C Hove, Jason S Kilgore |
| Abstract |
Freshwater mussels remain among the most imperiled species in North America due primarily to habitat loss or degradation. Understanding how mussels respond to habitat changes can improve conservation efforts. Mussels deposit rings in their shell in which age and growth information can be read, and thus used to evaluate how mussels respond to changes in habitat. However, discrepancies between methodological approaches to obtain life history information from growth rings has led to considerable uncertainty regarding the life history characteristics of many mussel species. In this study we compared two processing methods, internal and external ring examination, to obtain age and growth information of two populations of mussels in the St. Croix River, MN, and evaluated how mussel growth responded to changes in the operation of a hydroelectric dam. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 29 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 26% |
| Researcher | 6 | 19% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 13% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 10% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 4 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 15 | 48% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 23% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 6% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 3% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 4 | 13% |
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 07 March 2013.
All research outputs
#19,945,185
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Aquatic Biosystems
#56
of 74 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#152,660
of 206,327 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Aquatic Biosystems
#3
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 74 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.3. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 206,327 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 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.