↓ Skip to main content

Divergence in an obligate mutualism is not explained by divergent climatic factors

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
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
3 blogs

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
130 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
Divergence in an obligate mutualism is not explained by divergent climatic factors
Published in
New Phytologist, July 2009
DOI 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2009.02942.x
Pubmed ID
Authors

William Godsoe, Eva Strand, Christopher Irwin Smith, Jeremy B Yoder, Todd C Esque, Olle Pellmyr

Abstract

Adaptation to divergent environments creates and maintains biological diversity, but we know little about the importance of different agents of ecological divergence. Coevolution in obligate mutualisms has been hypothesized to drive divergence, but this contention has rarely been tested against alternative ecological explanations. Here, we use a well-established example of coevolution in an obligate pollination mutualism, Yucca brevifolia and its two pollinating yucca moths, to test the hypothesis that divergence in this system is the result of mutualists adapting to different abiotic environments as opposed to coevolution between mutualists. We used a combination of principal component analyses and ecological niche modeling to determine whether varieties of Y. brevifolia associated with different pollinators specialize on different environments. Yucca brevifolia occupies a diverse range of climates. When the two varieties can disperse to similar environments, they occupy similar habitats. This suggests that the two varieties have not specialized on distinct habitats. In turn, this suggests that nonclimatic factors, such as the biotic interaction between Y. brevifolia and its pollinators, are responsible for evolutionary divergence in this system.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 130 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 8 6%
Brazil 3 2%
Germany 2 2%
Belgium 2 2%
Canada 2 2%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 109 84%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 27 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 19%
Student > Master 15 12%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Professor 10 8%
Other 31 24%
Unknown 12 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 89 68%
Environmental Science 18 14%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 5 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Arts and Humanities 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 14 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 01 July 2016.
All research outputs
#1,756,232
of 22,711,242 outputs
Outputs from New Phytologist
#1,768
of 8,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,042
of 95,520 outputs
Outputs of similar age from New Phytologist
#3
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,711,242 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,538 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 95,520 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.