↓ Skip to main content

Climbing plants: attachment adaptations and bioinspired innovations

Overview of attention for article published in Plant Cell Reports, November 2017
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 (77th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
Title
Climbing plants: attachment adaptations and bioinspired innovations
Published in
Plant Cell Reports, November 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00299-017-2240-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jason N. Burris, Scott C. Lenaghan, C. Neal Stewart

Abstract

Climbing plants have unique adaptations to enable them to compete for sunlight, for which they invest minimal resources for vertical growth. Indeed, their stems bear relatively little weight, as they traverse their host substrates skyward. Climbers possess high tensile strength and flexibility, which allows them to utilize natural and manmade structures for support and growth. The climbing strategies of plants have intrigued scientists for centuries, yet our understanding about biochemical adaptations and their molecular undergirding is still in the early stages of research. Nonetheless, recent discoveries are promising, not only from a basic knowledge perspective, but also for bioinspired product development. Several adaptations, including nanoparticle and adhesive production will be reviewed, as well as practical translation of these adaptations to commercial applications. We will review the botanical literature on the modes of adaptation to climb, as well as specialized organs-and cellular innovations. Finally, recent molecular and biochemical data will be reviewed to assess the future needs and new directions for potential practical products that may be bioinspired by climbing plants.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 56 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 14%
Researcher 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 15 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 23%
Engineering 6 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Design 2 4%
Materials Science 2 4%
Other 12 21%
Unknown 18 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 17 September 2020.
All research outputs
#4,610,728
of 23,009,818 outputs
Outputs from Plant Cell Reports
#297
of 2,197 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,727
of 438,545 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Plant Cell Reports
#13
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,009,818 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,197 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 438,545 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 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 58% of its contemporaries.