↓ Skip to main content

A snap shot of the short-term response of crustaceans to macrophyte detritus in the deep Oslofjord

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
A snap shot of the short-term response of crustaceans to macrophyte detritus in the deep Oslofjord
Published in
Scientific Reports, March 2016
DOI 10.1038/srep23800
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eva Ramirez-Llodra, Eli Rinde, Hege Gundersen, Hartvig Christie, Camilla With Fagerli, Stein Fredriksen, Janne Kim Gitmark, Karl Norling, Mats Gunnar Walday, Kjell Magnus Norderhaug

Abstract

A test deployment of a time-lapse camera lander in the deep Oslofjord (431 m) was used to obtain initial information on the response of benthic fauna to macroalgal debris. Three macroalgal species were used on the lander baited plate: Fucus serratus, Saccharina latissima and Laminaria hyperborea and observed during 41.5 hours. The deep-water shrimp Pandalus borealis were attracted to the macroalgae rapidly (3 min after the lander reached the seafloor), followed by amphipods. Shrimp abundances were significantly higher in areas covered by macroalgae compared to the adjacent seafloor and the number of shrimp visiting the macroalgae increased with time. Amphipods arrived 13 hours later and were observed mainly on decaying L. hyperborea. The abundance of amphipods on L. hyperborea increased rapidly, reaching a peak at 31 h after deployment. These initial observations suggest that debris from kelp forests and other macroalgal beds may play an important role in fuelling deep benthic communities in the outer Oslofjord and, potentially, enhance secondary production of commercial species such as P. borealis.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 42%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Professor 1 5%
Student > Master 1 5%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 3 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 47%
Environmental Science 3 16%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 5%
Unknown 5 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 30 January 2017.
All research outputs
#8,301,033
of 14,405,861 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#37,315
of 74,340 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,091
of 264,471 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#1,462
of 2,898 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,405,861 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 74,340 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 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 264,471 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2,898 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.