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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
A quantitative review of pollination syndromes: do floral traits predict effective pollinators?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Ecology Letters, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1111/ele.12224 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Víctor Rosas‐Guerrero, Ramiro Aguilar, Silvana Martén‐Rodríguez, Lorena Ashworth, Martha Lopezaraiza‐Mikel, Jesús M. Bastida, Mauricio Quesada |
| Abstract |
The idea of pollination syndromes has been largely discussed but no formal quantitative evaluation has yet been conducted across angiosperms. We present the first systematic review of pollination syndromes that quantitatively tests whether the most effective pollinators for a species can be inferred from suites of floral traits for 417 plant species. Our results support the syndrome concept, indicating that convergent floral evolution is driven by adaptation to the most effective pollinator group. The predictability of pollination syndromes is greater in pollinator-dependent species and in plants from tropical regions. Many plant species also have secondary pollinators that generally correspond to the ancestral pollinators documented in evolutionary studies. We discuss the utility and limitations of pollination syndromes and the role of secondary pollinators to understand floral ecology and evolution. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 3 | 14% |
| United States | 2 | 9% |
| Australia | 1 | 5% |
| Italy | 1 | 5% |
| Mexico | 1 | 5% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 13 | 59% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 19 | 86% |
| Scientists | 2 | 9% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 931 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 8 | <1% |
| United States | 7 | <1% |
| Germany | 6 | <1% |
| Colombia | 2 | <1% |
| Finland | 2 | <1% |
| Canada | 2 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Taiwan | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 9 | <1% |
| Unknown | 892 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 180 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 167 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 130 | 14% |
| Researcher | 118 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 57 | 6% |
| Other | 131 | 14% |
| Unknown | 148 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 560 | 60% |
| Environmental Science | 126 | 14% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 30 | 3% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 11 | 1% |
| Engineering | 5 | <1% |
| Other | 29 | 3% |
| Unknown | 170 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 18 October 2019.
All research outputs
#1,533,688
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Ecology Letters
#867
of 3,186 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,611
of 321,926 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ecology Letters
#17
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,186 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 321,926 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 44 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 61% of its contemporaries.