↓ Skip to main content

Nearshore Pelagic Microbial Community Abundance Affects Recruitment Success of Giant Kelp, Macrocystis pyrifera

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Microbiology, November 2016
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 (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
104 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
Nearshore Pelagic Microbial Community Abundance Affects Recruitment Success of Giant Kelp, Macrocystis pyrifera
Published in
Frontiers in Microbiology, November 2016
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2016.01800
Pubmed ID
Authors

Megan M. Morris, John M. Haggerty, Bhavya N. Papudeshi, Alejandro A. Vega, Matthew S. Edwards, Elizabeth A. Dinsdale

Abstract

Marine microbes mediate key ecological processes in kelp forest ecosystems and interact with macroalgae. Pelagic and biofilm-associated microbes interact with macroalgal propagules at multiple stages of recruitment, yet these interactions have not been described for Macrocystis pyrifera. Here we investigate the influence of microbes from coastal environments on recruitment of giant kelp, M. pyrifera. Through repeated laboratory experiments, we tested the effects of altered pelagic microbial abundance on the settlement and development of the microscopic propagules of M. pyrifera during recruitment. M. pyrifera zoospores were reared in laboratory microcosms exposed to environmental microbial communities from seawater during the complete haploid stages of the kelp recruitment cycle, including zoospore release, followed by zoospore settlement, to gametophyte germination and development. We altered the microbial abundance states differentially in three independent experiments with repeated trials, where microbes were (a) present or absent in seawater, (b) altered in community composition, and (c) altered in abundance. Within the third experiment, we also tested the effect of nearshore versus offshore microbial communities on the macroalgal propagules. Distinct pelagic microbial communities were collected from two southern California temperate environments reflecting contrasting intensity of human influence, the nearshore Point Loma kelp forest and the offshore Santa Catalina Island kelp forest. The Point Loma kelp forest is a high impacted coastal region adjacent to the populous San Diego Bay; whereas the kelp forest at Catalina Island is a low impacted region of the Channel Islands, 40 km offshore the southern California coast, and is adjacent to a marine protected area. Kelp gametophytes reared with nearshore Point Loma microbes showed lower survival, growth, and deteriorated morphology compared to gametophytes with the offshore Catalina Island microbial community, and these effects were magnified under high microbial abundances. Reducing abundance of Point Loma microbes restored M. pyrifera propagule success. Yet an intermediate microbial abundance was optimal for kelp propagules reared with Catalina Island microbes, suggesting that microbes also have a beneficial influence on kelp. Our study shows that pelagic microbes from nearshore and offshore environments are differentially influencing kelp propagule success, which has significant implications for kelp recruitment and kelp forest ecosystem health.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 104 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 22%
Student > Master 18 17%
Researcher 14 13%
Student > Bachelor 12 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 23 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 37 36%
Environmental Science 22 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 13%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 2%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 2%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 27 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 November 2022.
All research outputs
#3,210,074
of 25,388,177 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#2,751
of 29,286 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,643
of 313,246 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#65
of 430 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,388,177 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 29,286 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 313,246 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 430 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.