↓ Skip to main content

No evidence for ecological segregation protecting native trout from invasive hybridization

Overview of attention for article published in Global Change Biology, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 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
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

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 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

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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
#7,862,138
of 25,603,577 outputs
Outputs from Global Change Biology
#4,839
of 6,408 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,608
of 327,664 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Global Change Biology
#90
of 118 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,603,577 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,408 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 327,664 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 64% 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 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.