↓ Skip to main content

White Band Disease transmission in the threatened coral, Acropora cervicornis

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
123 Mendeley
Title
White Band Disease transmission in the threatened coral, Acropora cervicornis
Published in
Scientific Reports, November 2012
DOI 10.1038/srep00804
Pubmed ID
Authors

S. A. Gignoux-Wolfsohn, Christopher J. Marks, Steven V. Vollmer

Abstract

The global rise in coral diseases has severely impacted coral reef ecosystems, yet often little is known about these diseases, including how they are transmitted. White Band Disease (WBD), for example, has caused unparalleled declines in live Acropora cover, spreading rapidly throughout the Caribbean by unknown means. Here we test four putative modes of WBD transmission to the staghorn coral Acropora cervicornis: two animal vectors (Coralliophila abbreviata and C. caribaea) and waterborne transmission to intact and injured coral tissues. Using aquarium-based infection experiments, we determine that C. abbreviata, but not C. caribaea, acts as both a vector and reservoir for transmission of the WBD pathogen. We also demonstrate waterborne transmission to injured, but not intact staghorn coral tissues. The combination of transmission by both animal vectors and through the water column helps explain how WBD is spread locally and across the Caribbean.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 <1%
Guadeloupe 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 118 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 24%
Student > Bachelor 26 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 13%
Researcher 16 13%
Other 9 7%
Other 17 14%
Unknown 10 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 59 48%
Environmental Science 31 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 11%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 6 5%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 <1%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 11 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 14 November 2014.
All research outputs
#2,987,844
of 12,476,446 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#17,042
of 57,109 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,199
of 140,118 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#294
of 746 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,476,446 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 57,109 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 140,118 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 746 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.