↓ Skip to main content

Context-dependent interactions and the regulation of species richness in freshwater fish

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Communications, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

3 news outlets
56 tweeters


3 Dimensions

Readers on

51 Mendeley
Context-dependent interactions and the regulation of species richness in freshwater fish
Published in
Nature Communications, March 2018
DOI 10.1038/s41467-018-03419-1
Pubmed ID

Andrew S. MacDougall, Eric Harvey, Jenny L. McCune, Karin A. Nilsson, Joseph Bennett, Jennifer Firn, Timothy Bartley, James B. Grace, Jocelyn Kelly, Tyler D. Tunney, Bailey McMeans, Shin-Ichiro S. Matsuzaki, Taku Kadoya, Ellen Esch, Kevin Cazelles, Nigel Lester, Kevin S. McCann


Species richness is regulated by a complex network of scale-dependent processes. This complexity can obscure the influence of limiting species interactions, making it difficult to determine if abiotic or biotic drivers are more predominant regulators of richness. Using integrative modeling of freshwater fish richness from 721 lakes along an 11o latitudinal gradient, we find negative interactions to be a relatively minor independent predictor of species richness in lakes despite the widespread presence of predators. Instead, interaction effects, when detectable among major functional groups and 231 species pairs, were strong, often positive, but contextually dependent on environment. These results are consistent with the idea that negative interactions internally structure lake communities but do not consistently 'scale-up' to regulate richness independently of the environment. The importance of environment for interaction outcomes and its role in the regulation of species richness highlights the potential sensitivity of fish communities to the environmental changes affecting lakes globally.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 56 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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 24%
Researcher 9 18%
Student > Bachelor 7 14%
Unspecified 7 14%
Student > Master 7 14%
Other 9 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 37%
Environmental Science 17 33%
Unspecified 12 24%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 1 2%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 57. 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 24 September 2018.
All research outputs
of 13,325,327 outputs
Outputs from Nature Communications
of 23,587 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 270,430 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Communications
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,325,327 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 23,587 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 47.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 270,430 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them