↓ Skip to main content

Impacts of bioturbation on temporal variation in bacterial and archaeal nitrogen-cycling gene abundance in coastal sediments

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Microbiology Reports, November 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 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
Impacts of bioturbation on temporal variation in bacterial and archaeal nitrogen-cycling gene abundance in coastal sediments
Published in
Environmental Microbiology Reports, November 2013
DOI 10.1111/1758-2229.12115
Pubmed ID
Authors

B. Laverock, K. Tait, J. A. Gilbert, A. M. Osborn, S. Widdicombe

Abstract

In marine environments, macrofauna living in or on the sediment surface may alter the structure, diversity and function of benthic microbial communities. In particular, microbial nitrogen (N)-cycling processes may be enhanced by the activity of large bioturbating organisms. Here, we study the effect of the burrowing mud shrimp Upogebia deltaura upon temporal variation in the abundance of genes representing key N-cycling functional guilds. The abundance of bacterial genes representing different N-cycling guilds displayed different temporal patterns in burrow sediments in comparison with surface sediments, suggesting that the burrow provides a unique environment where bacterial gene abundances are influenced directly by macrofaunal activity. In contrast, the abundances of archaeal ammonia oxidizers varied temporally but were not affected by bioturbation, indicating differential responses between bacterial and archaeal ammonia oxidizers to environmental physicochemical controls. This study highlights the importance of bioturbation as a control over the temporal variation in nitrogen-cycling microbial community dynamics within coastal sediments.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Hong Kong 1 2%
Sweden 1 2%
Netherlands 1 2%
Unknown 44 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 39%
Researcher 10 20%
Student > Bachelor 7 14%
Unspecified 5 10%
Other 3 6%
Other 5 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 24 49%
Environmental Science 10 20%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 7 14%
Unspecified 5 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Other 1 2%

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 11 March 2014.
All research outputs
#10,018,802
of 12,520,550 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Microbiology Reports
#493
of 631 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,039
of 187,494 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Microbiology Reports
#8
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,520,550 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 631 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 187,494 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.