↓ Skip to main content

Phylogenetic trophic specialization: a robust comparison of herbivorous guilds

Overview of attention for article published in Oecologia, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 Mendeley
Title
Phylogenetic trophic specialization: a robust comparison of herbivorous guilds
Published in
Oecologia, October 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00442-017-3980-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Leonardo R. Jorge, Vojtech Novotny, Simon T. Segar, George D. Weiblen, Scott E. Miller, Yves Basset, Thomas M. Lewinsohn

Abstract

Resource specialization is a key concept in ecology, but it is unexpectedly difficult to parameterize. Differences in resource availability, sampling effort and abundances preclude comparisons of incompletely sampled biotic interaction webs. Here, we extend the distance-based specialization index (DSI) that measures trophic specialization by taking resource phylogenetic relatedness and availability into account into a rescaled version, DSI*. It is a versatile metric of specialization that expands considerably the scope and applicability, hence the usefulness, of DSI. The new metric also accounts for differences in abundance and sampling effort of consumers, which enables robust comparisons among distinct guilds of consumers. It also provides an abundance threshold for the reliability of the metric for rare species, a very desirable property given the difficulty of assessing any aspect of rare species accurately. We apply DSI* to an extensive dataset on interactions between insect herbivores from four folivorous guilds and their host plants in Papua New Guinean rainforests. We demonstrate that DSI*, contrary to the original DSI, is largely independent of sample size and weakly and non-linearly related with several host specificity measures that do not adjust for plant phylogeny. Thus, DSI* provides further insights into host specificity patterns; moreover, it is robust to the number and phylogenetic diversity of plant species selected to be sampled for herbivores. DSI* can be used for a broad range of comparisons of distinct feeding guilds, geographical locations and ecological conditions. This is a key advance in elucidating the interaction structure and evolution of highly diversified systems.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 71 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 24%
Researcher 16 23%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Student > Master 5 7%
Professor 4 6%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 13 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 40 56%
Environmental Science 7 10%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Computer Science 1 1%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 16 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 31 October 2017.
All research outputs
#15,688,569
of 23,313,051 outputs
Outputs from Oecologia
#3,296
of 4,267 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#206,775
of 329,411 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oecologia
#60
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,313,051 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,267 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 329,411 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.