↓ Skip to main content

Evolution of feeding specialization in Tanganyikan scale-eating cichlids: a molecular phylogenetic approach

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Ecology and Evolution, October 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
wikipedia
11 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 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
Evolution of feeding specialization in Tanganyikan scale-eating cichlids: a molecular phylogenetic approach
Published in
BMC Ecology and Evolution, October 2007
DOI 10.1186/1471-2148-7-195
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rieko Takahashi, Katsutoshi Watanabe, Mutsumi Nishida, Michio Hori

Abstract

Cichlid fishes in Lake Tanganyika exhibit remarkable diversity in their feeding habits. Among them, seven species in the genus Perissodus are known for their unique feeding habit of scale eating with specialized feeding morphology and behaviour. Although the origin of the scale-eating habit has long been questioned, its evolutionary process is still unknown. In the present study, we conducted interspecific phylogenetic analyses for all nine known species in the tribe Perissodini (seven Perissodus and two Haplotaxodon species) using amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) analyses of the nuclear DNA. On the basis of the resultant phylogenetic frameworks, the evolution of their feeding habits was traced using data from analyses of stomach contents, habitat depths, and observations of oral jaw tooth morphology.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 1%
Tanzania, United Republic of 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
Unknown 73 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 25%
Researcher 15 20%
Student > Master 13 17%
Other 6 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 8%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 5 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 52 68%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 11%
Environmental Science 4 5%
Unspecified 1 1%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 1%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 5 7%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 14 April 2017.
All research outputs
#4,366,819
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#1,123
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,335
of 88,251 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#8
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,714 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 88,251 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.