↓ Skip to main content

Darwin's beautiful contrivances: evolutionary and functional evidence for floral adaptation

Overview of attention for article published in New Phytologist, July 2009
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 (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
5 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
322 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
377 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Darwin's beautiful contrivances: evolutionary and functional evidence for floral adaptation
Published in
New Phytologist, July 2009
DOI 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2009.02914.x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lawrence D Harder, Steven D Johnson

Abstract

Although not 'a professed botanist', Charles Darwin made seminal contributions to understanding of floral and inflorescence function while seeking evidence of adaptation by natural selection. This review considers the legacy of Darwin's ideas from three perspectives. First, we examine the process of floral and inflorescence adaptation by surveying studies of phenotypic selection, heritability and selection responses. Despite widespread phenotypic and genetic capacity for natural selection, only one-third of estimates indicate phenotypic selection. Second, we evaluate experimental studies of floral and inflorescence function and find that they usually demonstrate that reproductive traits represent adaptations. Finally, we consider the role of adaptation in floral diversification. Despite different diversification modes (coevolution, divergent use of the same pollen vector, pollinator shifts), evidence of pollination ecotypes and phylogenetic patterns suggests that adaptation commonly contributes to floral diversity. Thus, this review reveals a contrast between the inconsistent occurrence of phenotypic selection and convincing experimental and comparative evidence that floral traits are adaptations. Rather than rejecting Darwin's hypotheses about floral evolution, this contrast suggests that the tempo of creative selection varies, with strong, consistent selection during episodes of diversification, but relatively weak and inconsistent selection during longer, 'normal' periods of relative phenotypic stasis.

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 377 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 9 2%
United Kingdom 7 2%
Spain 4 1%
Canada 4 1%
Germany 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Colombia 2 <1%
France 2 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Other 10 3%
Unknown 334 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 72 19%
Student > Master 61 16%
Researcher 58 15%
Student > Bachelor 37 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 23 6%
Other 71 19%
Unknown 55 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 249 66%
Environmental Science 25 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 18 5%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 3 <1%
Computer Science 2 <1%
Other 14 4%
Unknown 66 18%
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 27 November 2022.
All research outputs
#6,493,896
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from New Phytologist
#4,901
of 10,054 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,815
of 115,041 outputs
Outputs of similar age from New Phytologist
#16
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 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 10,054 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 115,041 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 41 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.