↓ Skip to main content

A quantitative review of pollination syndromes: do floral traits predict effective pollinators?

Overview of attention for article published in Ecology Letters, January 2014
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)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
22 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
356 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
934 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
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

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 934 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 895 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 181 19%
Student > Master 167 18%
Student > Bachelor 130 14%
Researcher 119 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 57 6%
Other 133 14%
Unknown 147 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 561 60%
Environmental Science 126 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 30 3%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 12 1%
Engineering 5 <1%
Other 31 3%
Unknown 169 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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
#1,419,705
of 24,558,777 outputs
Outputs from Ecology Letters
#826
of 3,028 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,049
of 315,752 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ecology Letters
#17
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,558,777 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,028 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.3. 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 315,752 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.