↓ Skip to main content

When should we expect microbial phenotypic traits to predict microbial abundances?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Microbiology, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
89 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
When should we expect microbial phenotypic traits to predict microbial abundances?
Published in
Frontiers in Microbiology, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2012.00268
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeremy W. Fox

Abstract

Species' phenotypic traits may predict their relative abundances. Intuitively, this is because locally abundant species have traits making them well-adapted to local abiotic and biotic conditions, while locally rare species are not as well-adapted. But this intuition may not be valid. If competing species vary in how well-adapted they are to local conditions, why doesn't the best-adapted species simply exclude the others entirely? But conversely, if species exhibit niche differences that allow them to coexist, then by definition there is no single best adapted species. Rather, demographic rates depend on species' relative abundances, so that phenotypic traits conferring high adaptedness do not necessarily confer high abundance. I illustrate these points using a simple theoretical model incorporating adjustable levels of "adaptedness" and "niche differences." Even very small niche differences can weaken or even reverse the expected correlation between adaptive traits and abundance. Conversely, adaptive traits confer high abundance when niche differences are very strong. Future work should be directed toward understanding the link between phenotypic traits and frequency-dependence of demographic rates.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 7%
Brazil 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
New Zealand 1 1%
South Africa 1 1%
Unknown 79 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 36%
Researcher 19 21%
Student > Master 13 15%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 4%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 5 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 53 60%
Environmental Science 15 17%
Arts and Humanities 3 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Engineering 2 2%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 9 10%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 17 October 2013.
All research outputs
#3,759,649
of 22,675,759 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#3,608
of 24,472 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,936
of 244,088 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#35
of 317 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,675,759 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 24,472 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 244,088 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 317 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.