↓ Skip to main content

Issues to Be Considered in Counting Burrows as a Measure of Atlantic Ghost Crab Populations, an Important Bioindicator of Sandy Beaches

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, December 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 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
Issues to Be Considered in Counting Burrows as a Measure of Atlantic Ghost Crab Populations, an Important Bioindicator of Sandy Beaches
Published in
PLOS ONE, December 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0083792
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maíra Pombo, Alexander Turra

Abstract

The use of indirect estimates of ghost-crab populations to assess beach disturbance has several advantages, including non-destructiveness, ease and low cost, although this strategy may add some degree of noise to estimates of population parameters. Resolution of these shortcomings may allow wider use of these populations as an indicator of differences in quality among beaches. This study analyzed to what extent the number of crab burrows may diverge from the number of animals, considering beach morphology, burrow depth and signs of occupation as contributing factors or indicators of a higher or lower occupation rate. We estimated the occupation rate of crabs in burrows on nine low-use beaches, which were previously categorized as dissipative, intermediate or reflexive. Three random 2-m-wide transects were laid perpendicular to the shoreline, where burrows were counted and excavated to search for crabs. The depth and signs of recent activity around the burrows were also recorded. The occupation rate differed on the different beaches, but morphodynamics was not identified as a grouping factor. A considerable number of burrows that lacked signs of recent activity proved to be occupied, and the proportions of these burrows also differed among beaches. Virtually all burrows less than 10 cm deep were unoccupied; the occupation rate tended to increase gradually to a burrow depth of 20-35 cm. Other methods (water, smoke, and traps) were applied to measure the effectiveness of excavating as a method for burrow counts. Traps and excavation proved to be the best methods. These observations illustrate the possible degree of unreliability of comparisons of beaches based on indirect measures. Combining burrow depth assessment with surrounding signs of occupation proved to be a useful tool to minimize biases.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 2%
South Africa 1 1%
Japan 1 1%
Unknown 80 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 16 19%
Researcher 12 14%
Student > Master 11 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 7%
Student > Postgraduate 4 5%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 24 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 33%
Environmental Science 18 21%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 1%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 28 33%
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 06 January 2014.
All research outputs
#17,708,224
of 22,738,543 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#146,721
of 194,081 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#222,534
of 306,693 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#3,987
of 5,627 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,738,543 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 194,081 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. 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 306,693 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,627 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.