↓ Skip to main content

Use and misuse of temperature normalisation in meta-analyses of thermal responses of biological traits

Overview of attention for article published in PeerJ, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 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
Use and misuse of temperature normalisation in meta-analyses of thermal responses of biological traits
Published in
PeerJ, February 2018
DOI 10.7717/peerj.4363
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dimitrios - Georgios Kontopoulos, Bernardo García-Carreras, Sofía Sal, Thomas P. Smith, Samraat Pawar

Abstract

There is currently unprecedented interest in quantifying variation in thermal physiology among organisms, especially in order to understand and predict the biological impacts of climate change. A key parameter in this quantification of thermal physiology is the performance or value of a rate, across individuals or species, at a common temperature (temperature normalisation). An increasingly popular model for fitting thermal performance curves to data-the Sharpe-Schoolfield equation-can yield strongly inflated estimates of temperature-normalised rate values. These deviations occur whenever a key thermodynamic assumption of the model is violated, i.e., when the enzyme governing the performance of the rate is not fully functional at the chosen reference temperature. Using data on 1,758 thermal performance curves across a wide range of species, we identify the conditions that exacerbate this inflation. We then demonstrate that these biases can compromise tests to detect metabolic cold adaptation, which requires comparison of fitness or rate performance of different species or genotypes at some fixed low temperature. Finally, we suggest alternative methods for obtaining unbiased estimates of temperature-normalised rate values for meta-analyses of thermal performance across species in climate change impact studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users 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 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 69 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 29%
Researcher 9 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 13%
Other 3 4%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 11 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 27 39%
Environmental Science 11 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 6%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 3 4%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 16 23%
Attention Score in Context

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 22 November 2019.
All research outputs
#6,492,028
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from PeerJ
#5,441
of 13,425 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#136,027
of 442,600 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PeerJ
#177
of 349 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,425 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 442,600 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 349 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.