↓ Skip to main content

Population genetic structure of gray wolves (Canis lupus) in a marine archipelago suggests island-mainland differentiation consistent with dietary niche

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Ecology, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#8 of 417)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
9 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
38 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
105 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
Population genetic structure of gray wolves (Canis lupus) in a marine archipelago suggests island-mainland differentiation consistent with dietary niche
Published in
BMC Ecology, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/1472-6785-14-11
Pubmed ID
Authors

Astrid V Stronen, Erin L Navid, Michael S Quinn, Paul C Paquet, Heather M Bryan, Christopher T Darimont

Abstract

Emerging evidence suggests that ecological heterogeneity across space can influence the genetic structure of populations, including that of long-distance dispersers such as large carnivores. On the central coast of British Columbia, Canada, wolf (Canis lupus L., 1758) dietary niche and parasite prevalence data indicate strong ecological divergence between marine-oriented wolves inhabiting islands and individuals on the coastal mainland that interact primarily with terrestrial prey. Local holders of traditional ecological knowledge, who distinguish between mainland and island wolf forms, also informed our hypothesis that genetic differentiation might occur between wolves from these adjacent environments.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 38 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 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 2%
France 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 101 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 30 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 17%
Student > Bachelor 15 14%
Student > Master 11 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Other 16 15%
Unknown 9 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 65 62%
Environmental Science 14 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 2%
Other 4 4%
Unknown 14 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 117. 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 07 April 2019.
All research outputs
#231,531
of 19,141,916 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ecology
#8
of 417 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,382
of 201,234 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ecology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,141,916 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 417 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 201,234 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them