↓ Skip to main content

Does source population size affect performance in new environments?

Overview of attention for article published in Evolutionary Applications, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Does source population size affect performance in new environments?
Published in
Evolutionary Applications, July 2014
DOI 10.1111/eva.12181
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew C. Yates, Dylan J. Fraser

Abstract

Small populations are predicted to perform poorly relative to large populations when experiencing environmental change. To explore this prediction in nature, data from reciprocal transplant, common garden, and translocation studies were compared meta-analytically. We contrasted changes in performance resulting from transplantation to new environments among individuals originating from different sized source populations from plants and salmonids. We then evaluated the effect of source population size on performance in natural common garden environments and the relationship between population size and habitat quality. In 'home-away' contrasts, large populations exhibited reduced performance in new environments. In common gardens, the effect of source population size on performance was inconsistent across life-history stages (LHS) and environments. When transplanted to the same set of new environments, small populations either performed equally well or better than large populations, depending on life stage. Conversely, large populations outperformed small populations within native environments, but only at later life stages. Population size was not associated with habitat quality. Several factors might explain the negative association between source population size and performance in new environments: (i) stronger local adaptation in large populations and antagonistic pleiotropy, (ii) the maintenance of genetic variation in small populations, and (iii) potential environmental differences between large and small populations.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Benin 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 70 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 24%
Researcher 12 16%
Student > Master 9 12%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Librarian 3 4%
Other 16 22%
Unknown 9 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 38 51%
Environmental Science 10 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 1%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 13 18%

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 04 December 2014.
All research outputs
#6,768,780
of 21,173,899 outputs
Outputs from Evolutionary Applications
#846
of 1,347 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,753
of 202,744 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Evolutionary Applications
#9
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,173,899 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,347 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 202,744 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 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 55% of its contemporaries.