↓ Skip to main content

Reestablishing a host–affiliate relationship: migratory fish reintroduction increases native mussel recruitment

Overview of attention for article published in Ecological Applications, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 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
Reestablishing a host–affiliate relationship: migratory fish reintroduction increases native mussel recruitment
Published in
Ecological Applications, August 2018
DOI 10.1002/eap.1775
Pubmed ID
Authors

Heather S. Galbraith, Julie L. Devers, Carrie J. Blakeslee, Jeffrey C. Cole, Barbara St. John White, Steve Minkkinen, William A. Lellis

Abstract

Co-extirpation among host-affiliate species is thought to be a leading cause of biodiversity loss worldwide. Freshwater mussels (Unionida) are at risk globally and face many threats to survival, including limited access to viable host fish required to complete their life history. We examine the relationship between the common eastern elliptio mussel (Elliptio complanata) and its migratory host fish the American eel (Anguilla rostrata), whose distribution in the Chesapeake Bay watershed is limited, in part, by dams. We examined population demographics of E. complanata across locations in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, primarily in the Susquehanna River in the absence of American eels, and conducted experimental restocking of eels to assess potential impacts on mussel recruitment. Compared to surveys completed ~20 years prior, E. complanata could be experiencing declines at several historically abundant sites. These sites also had extremely limited evidence of recruitment. Restoration of host fish improved recruitment, but results were not equivalent between stocking sites indicating that host reintroduction alone may not be fully effective in reestablishing mussel populations. One site where eels were introduced (Pine Creek, Tioga County, PA) experienced an increase from 0 juveniles found during quantitative surveys prior to eel stocking to 151 (21% of individuals collected during quantitative surveys) E. complanata juveniles found four years after stocking. A second site (Buffalo Creek, Union County, PA) experienced a more moderate increase from 2 to 7 juveniles found during 2010 and 2014 quantitative surveys, respectively. Continued examination of other potential interacting factors affecting recruitment, including water quality or habitat conditions, are necessary to target favorable sites for successful restoration. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 22%
Researcher 7 15%
Other 5 11%
Student > Master 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 13 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 9 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 20%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 4%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 4%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 18 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 02 October 2018.
All research outputs
#14,003,371
of 24,417,958 outputs
Outputs from Ecological Applications
#2,483
of 3,325 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,380
of 335,226 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ecological Applications
#29
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,417,958 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,325 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. 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 335,226 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 50% 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 is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.