↓ Skip to main content

How have fisheries affected parasite communities?

Overview of attention for article published in Parasitology, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
Title
How have fisheries affected parasite communities?
Published in
Parasitology, March 2014
DOI 10.1017/s003118201400002x
Pubmed ID
Authors

CHELSEA L. WOOD, KEVIN D. LAFFERTY

Abstract

SUMMARY To understand how fisheries affect parasites, we conducted a meta-analysis of studies that contrasted parasite assemblages in fished and unfished areas. Parasite diversity was lower in hosts from fished areas. Larger hosts had a greater abundance of parasites, suggesting that fishing might reduce the abundance of parasites by selectively removing the largest, most heavily parasitized individuals. After controlling for size, the effect of fishing on parasite abundance varied according to whether the host was fished and the parasite's life cycle. Parasites of unfished hosts were more likely to increase in abundance in response to fishing than were parasites of fished hosts, possibly due to compensatory increases in the abundance of unfished hosts. While complex life cycle parasites tended to decline in abundance in response to fishing, directly transmitted parasites tended to increase. Among complex life cycle parasites, those with fished hosts tended to decline in abundance in response to fishing, while those with unfished hosts tended to increase. However, among directly transmitted parasites, responses did not differ between parasites with and without fished hosts. This work suggests that parasite assemblages are likely to change substantially in composition in increasingly fished ecosystems, and that parasite life history and fishing status of the host are important in predicting the response of individual parasite species or groups to fishing.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 3 5%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 53 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 25%
Researcher 12 20%
Student > Master 11 19%
Student > Bachelor 7 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 12%
Other 7 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 38 64%
Environmental Science 9 15%
Unspecified 4 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 2%
Other 4 7%

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 15 April 2014.
All research outputs
#9,943,036
of 12,419,841 outputs
Outputs from Parasitology
#1,377
of 1,696 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,491
of 192,672 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Parasitology
#22
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,419,841 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 1,696 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 192,672 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 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.