↓ Skip to main content

Selective Grazing by a Tropical Copepod (Notodiaptomus iheringi) Facilitates Microcystis Dominance

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Microbiology, February 2018
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
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 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
Selective Grazing by a Tropical Copepod (Notodiaptomus iheringi) Facilitates Microcystis Dominance
Published in
Frontiers in Microbiology, February 2018
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2018.00301
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ewaldo Leitão, Kemal A. Ger, Renata Panosso

Abstract

Top-down grazer control of cyanobacteria is a controversial topic due to conflicting reports of success and failure as well as a bias toward studies in temperate climates with large generalist grazers likeDaphnia. In the tropical lowland lakes of Brazil, calanoid copepods of theNotodiaptomuscomplex dominate zooplankton and co-exist in high abundance with permanent blooms of toxic cyanobacteria, raising questions for grazer effects on bloom dynamics (i.e., top-down control vs. facilitation of cyanobacterial dominance). Accordingly, the effect of copepod grazing on the relative abundance ofMicrocystisco-cultured with a eukaryotic phytoplankton (Cryptomonas) was evaluated in a series of 6-day laboratory experiments. Grazer effects were tested in incubations where the growth of each phytoplankton in the presence or absence of the copepodNotodiaptomus iheringiwas monitored in 1 L co-cultures, starting with a 6-fold initial dominance ofCryptomonasby biomass. Compared to the no grazer controls,N. iheringireduced the growth of both phytoplankton, butCryptomonasgrowth was reduced to negative values whileMicrocystisgrowth continued positively despite grazers. Hence, in a matter of 6 days selective grazing byN. iheringiincreased the biomass ofMicrocystisrelative toCryptomonasby an order of magnitude compared to controls, and thus, facilitated the dominance of this cyanobacterium. To account for the potential effect of allelopathy, we performed a secondary experiment comparing the abundance and growth rate ofMicrocystisandCryptomonasin single and mixed co-cultures in the absence of grazers. The growth rate ofMicrocystiswas unaffected by the presence or relative abundance ofCryptomonas, and vice versa, indicating no allelopathic effects. Our results suggest that selectively grazing zooplankton may facilitate cyanobacteria blooms by grazing on their eukaryotic phytoplankton competitors in nature. Given that selective grazers predominate zooplankton biomass in warmer waters, grazer facilitation of blooms may be a common but poorly understood regulator of plankton dynamics in a warmer and more eutrophic world.

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 2 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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 18%
Student > Bachelor 9 18%
Student > Master 7 14%
Researcher 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 10%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 13 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 11 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 6%
Engineering 2 4%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 17 35%
Attention Score in Context

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 13 July 2019.
All research outputs
#14,378,457
of 23,026,672 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#12,569
of 25,153 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#187,863
of 330,332 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#358
of 595 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,026,672 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,153 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 330,332 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 595 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.