↓ Skip to main content

Ecosystem features determine seagrass community response to sea otter foraging

Overview of attention for article published in Marine Pollution Bulletin, December 2017
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 (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
25 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
29 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
Ecosystem features determine seagrass community response to sea otter foraging
Published in
Marine Pollution Bulletin, December 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.09.047
Pubmed ID
Authors

Margot Hessing-Lewis, Erin U. Rechsteiner, Brent B. Hughes, M. Tim Tinker, Zachary L. Monteith, Angeleen M. Olson, Matthew Morgan Henderson, Jane C. Watson

Abstract

Comparing sea otter recovery in California (CA) and British Columbia (BC) reveals key ecosystem properties that shape top-down effects in seagrass communities. We review potential ecosystem drivers of sea otter foraging in CA and BC seagrass beds, including the role of coastline complexity and environmental stress on sea otter effects. In BC, we find greater species richness across seagrass trophic assemblages. Furthermore, Cancer spp. crabs, an important link in the seagrass trophic cascade observed in CA, are less common. Additionally, the more recent reintroduction of sea otters, more complex coastline, and reduced environmental stress in BC seagrass habitats supports the hypotheses that sea otter foraging pressure is currently reduced there. In order to manage the ecosystem features that lead to regional differences in top predator effects in seagrass communities, we review our findings, their spatial and temporal constraints, and present a social-ecological framework for future research.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 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 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 24%
Researcher 7 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Other 6 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 62%
Environmental Science 8 28%
Unspecified 3 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 December 2017.
All research outputs
#632,067
of 11,357,652 outputs
Outputs from Marine Pollution Bulletin
#211
of 3,732 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,968
of 290,983 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Marine Pollution Bulletin
#10
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,357,652 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,732 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 290,983 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.