↓ Skip to main content

Depth and Medium-Scale Spatial Processes Influence Fish Assemblage Structure of Unconsolidated Habitats in a Subtropical Marine Park

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 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
Depth and Medium-Scale Spatial Processes Influence Fish Assemblage Structure of Unconsolidated Habitats in a Subtropical Marine Park
Published in
PLOS ONE, May 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0096798
Pubmed ID
Authors

Arthur L. Schultz, Hamish A. Malcolm, Daniel J. Bucher, Michelle Linklater, Stephen D. A. Smith

Abstract

Where biological datasets are spatially limited, abiotic surrogates have been advocated to inform objective planning for Marine Protected Areas. However, this approach assumes close correlation between abiotic and biotic patterns. The Solitary Islands Marine Park, northern NSW, Australia, currently uses a habitat classification system (HCS) to assist with planning, but this is based only on data for reefs. We used Baited Remote Underwater Videos (BRUVs) to survey fish assemblages of unconsolidated substrata at different depths, distances from shore, and across an along-shore spatial scale of 10 s of km (2 transects) to examine how well the HCS works for this dominant habitat. We used multivariate regression modelling to examine the importance of these, and other environmental factors (backscatter intensity, fine-scale bathymetric variation and rugosity), in structuring fish assemblages. There were significant differences in fish assemblages across depths, distance from shore, and over the medium spatial scale of the study: together, these factors generated the optimum model in multivariate regression. However, marginal tests suggested that backscatter intensity, which itself is a surrogate for sediment type and hardness, might also influence fish assemblages and needs further investigation. Species richness was significantly different across all factors: however, total MaxN only differed significantly between locations. This study demonstrates that the pre-existing abiotic HCS only partially represents the range of fish assemblages of unconsolidated habitats in the region.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 1%
South Africa 1 1%
Unknown 69 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 20%
Student > Master 12 17%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 12 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 26 37%
Environmental Science 22 31%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Computer Science 1 1%
Psychology 1 1%
Other 1 1%
Unknown 19 27%
Attention Score in Context

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 07 January 2015.
All research outputs
#15,314,171
of 22,776,824 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#130,561
of 194,344 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,514
of 226,974 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,871
of 4,670 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,776,824 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 194,344 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 226,974 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,670 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.