↓ Skip to main content

Negative density-dependent mortality varies over time in a wet tropical forest, advantaging rare species, common species, or no species

Overview of attention for article published in Oecologia, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
78 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
Negative density-dependent mortality varies over time in a wet tropical forest, advantaging rare species, common species, or no species
Published in
Oecologia, July 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00442-015-3402-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bénédicte Bachelot, Richard K. Kobe, Corine Vriesendorp

Abstract

Although one of the most widely studied hypotheses for high tree diversity in the tropics, the Janzen-Connell hypothesis (JC), and the community compensatory trend upon which it is based, have conflicting support from prior studies. Some of this variation could arise from temporal variation in seedling survival of common and rare species. Using 10 years of data from La Selva Biological Station in Costa Rica, we analyzed annual seedling survival and found that negative density-dependence (negative DD) was significantly stronger for rare species than for common species in 2 years and was significantly stronger for common species than for rare species in 4 years. This temporal variation in survival was correlated with climatic variables: in warmer and wetter years, common species had higher negative DD than rare species. The relationship between climate and variation in JC effects on seedling survival of common and rare species could have important consequences for the maintenance of tree species diversity in Central America, which is predicted to experience warmer and wetter years as global change proceeds.

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 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 1%
Unknown 77 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 26%
Researcher 16 21%
Student > Master 8 10%
Professor 5 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 15 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 36 46%
Environmental Science 18 23%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Unspecified 1 1%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 16 21%
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 04 August 2016.
All research outputs
#20,295,099
of 22,831,537 outputs
Outputs from Oecologia
#3,991
of 4,220 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#219,639
of 262,915 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oecologia
#53
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,831,537 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,220 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 262,915 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.