↓ Skip to main content

The spatial scale of genetic subdivision in populations of Ifremeria nautilei, a hydrothermal-vent gastropod from the southwest Pacific

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Ecology and Evolution, December 2011
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 (90th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 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
The spatial scale of genetic subdivision in populations of Ifremeria nautilei, a hydrothermal-vent gastropod from the southwest Pacific
Published in
BMC Ecology and Evolution, December 2011
DOI 10.1186/1471-2148-11-372
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew D Thaler, Kevin Zelnio, William Saleu, Thomas F Schultz, Jens Carlsson, Clifford Cunningham, Robert C Vrijenhoek, Cindy L Van Dover

Abstract

Deep-sea hydrothermal vents provide patchy, ephemeral habitats for specialized communities of animals that depend on chemoautotrophic primary production. Unlike eastern Pacific hydrothermal vents, where population structure has been studied at large (thousands of kilometres) and small (hundreds of meters) spatial scales, population structure of western Pacific vents has received limited attention. This study addresses the scale at which genetic differentiation occurs among populations of a western Pacific vent-restricted gastropod, Ifremeria nautilei.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 3%
Portugal 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Chile 1 1%
New Zealand 1 1%
Singapore 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 72 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 20%
Student > Master 12 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Other 4 5%
Other 12 15%
Unknown 11 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 39 49%
Environmental Science 13 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 5%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 4 5%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 13 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 21 August 2017.
All research outputs
#3,048,321
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#802
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,702
of 248,905 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#15
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,714 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 248,905 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 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.