↓ Skip to main content

Epibiotic pressure contributes to biofouling invader success

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
Title
Epibiotic pressure contributes to biofouling invader success
Published in
Scientific Reports, July 2017
DOI 10.1038/s41598-017-05470-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kaeden Leonard, Chad L. Hewitt, Marnie L. Campbell, Carmen Primo, Steven D. Miller

Abstract

Reduced competition is a frequent explanation for the success of many introduced species. In benthic marine biofouling communities, space limitation leads to high rates of overgrowth competition. Some species can utilise other living organisms as substrate (epibiosis), proffering a competitive advantage for the epibiont. Additionally, some species can prevent or reduce epibiotic settlement on their surfaces and avoid being basibionts. To test whether epibiotic pressure differs between native and introduced species, we undertook ex situ experiments comparing bryozoan larval settlement to determine if introduced species demonstrate a greater propensity to settle as epibionts, and a reduced propensity to be basibionts, than native species. Here we report that introduced species opportunistically settle on any space (bare, native, or introduced), whereas native species exhibit a strong tendency to settle on and near other natives, but avoid settling on or near introduced basibionts. In addition, larvae of native species experience greater larval wastage (mortality) than introduced species, both in the presence and absence of living substrates. Introduced species' ability to settle on natives as epibionts, and in turn avoid epibiosis as basibionts, combined with significantly enhanced native larval wastage, provides a comprehensive suite of competitive advantages contributing to the invasion success of these biofouling species.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters 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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 30%
Student > Bachelor 5 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 15%
Professor 3 11%
Unspecified 3 11%
Other 4 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 37%
Unspecified 7 26%
Environmental Science 6 22%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Other 2 7%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 16 July 2017.
All research outputs
#6,323,892
of 11,472,317 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#22,539
of 49,642 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,388
of 258,353 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#1,916
of 4,051 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,472,317 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 49,642 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 258,353 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 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,051 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 51% of its contemporaries.