The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
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 |
No evidence for ecological segregation protecting native trout from invasive hybridization
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Global Change Biology, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1111/gcb.13825 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ryan P. Kovach, Clint C. Muhlfeld, Robert Al‐Chokhachy, Stephen J. Amish, Jeffrey L. Kershner, Robb F. Leary, Winsor H. Lowe, Gordon Luikart, Phil Matson, David A. Schmetterling, Bradley B. Shepard, Peter A. H. Westley, Diane Whited, Andrew Whiteley, Fred W. Allendorf |
| Abstract |
We appreciate the comments of Young et al. (2017) on our recent paper (Muhlfeld et al., 2017) concerning spatiotemporal dynamics of hybridization between native westslope cutthroat trout (Oncoryhnchus clarkii lewisi; WCT) and introduced coastal rainbow trout (O. mykiss irideus; RBT). Nevertheless, we believe there is no evidence for "ecological segregation" protecting WCT from invasive RBT. Here we consider their three major arguments for ecological segregation and find their conclusions invalid. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pakistan | 1 | 13% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 6 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 63% |
| Scientists | 2 | 25% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 40 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 25% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Researcher | 6 | 15% |
| Professor | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Unknown | 7 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 16 | 40% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 12 | 30% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 5% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 8 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 27 November 2017.
All research outputs
#7,387,632
of 26,335,402 outputs
Outputs from Global Change Biology
#4,940
of 6,695 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,821
of 332,515 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Global Change Biology
#86
of 118 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,335,402 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,695 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.5. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 332,515 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 118 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.