↓ Skip to main content

Do extrafloral nectar resources, species abundances, and body sizes contribute to the structure of ant–plant mutualistic networks?

Overview of attention for article published in Oecologia, June 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
123 Mendeley
Title
Do extrafloral nectar resources, species abundances, and body sizes contribute to the structure of ant–plant mutualistic networks?
Published in
Oecologia, June 2010
DOI 10.1007/s00442-010-1673-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Scott A. Chamberlain, Jeffrey R. Kilpatrick, J. Nathaniel Holland

Abstract

Recent research has shown that many mutualistic communities display non-random structures. While our understanding of the structural properties of mutualistic communities continues to improve, we know little of the biological variables resulting in them. Mutualistic communities include those formed between ants and extrafloral (EF) nectar-bearing plants. In this study, we examined the contributions of plant and ant abundance, plant and ant size, and plant EF nectar resources to the network structures of nestedness and interaction frequency of ant-plant networks across five sites within one geographic locality in the Sonoran Desert. Interactions between ant and plant species were largely symmetric. That is, ant and plant species exerted nearly equivalent quantitative interaction effects on one another, as measured by their frequency of interaction. The mutualistic ant-plant networks also showed nested patterns of structure, in which there was a central core of generalist ant and plant species interacting with one another and few specialist-specialist interactions. Abundance and plant size and ant body size were the best predictors of symmetric interactions between plants and ants, as well as nestedness. Despite interactions in these communities being ultimately mediated by EF nectar resources, the number of EF nectaries had a relatively weak ability to explain variation in symmetric interactions and nestedness. These results suggest that different mechanisms may contribute to structure of bipartite networks. Moreover, our results for ant-plant mutualistic networks support the general importance of species abundances for the structure of species interactions within biological communities.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 4%
Brazil 5 4%
Argentina 2 2%
Chile 1 <1%
Bolivia, Plurinational State of 1 <1%
Papua New Guinea 1 <1%
Ecuador 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Other 8 7%
Unknown 97 79%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 23%
Researcher 26 21%
Student > Master 14 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 9%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Other 25 20%
Unknown 11 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 78 63%
Environmental Science 22 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 2%
Computer Science 1 <1%
Other 3 2%
Unknown 15 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 14 January 2011.
All research outputs
#5,649,644
of 22,705,019 outputs
Outputs from Oecologia
#1,158
of 4,203 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,907
of 96,171 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oecologia
#7
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,705,019 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,203 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 96,171 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 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 56% of its contemporaries.