↓ Skip to main content

Taxonomic status of Monotropastrum humile, with special reference to M. humile var. glaberrimum (Ericaceae, Monotropoideae)

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Plant Research, April 2008
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
Title
Taxonomic status of Monotropastrum humile, with special reference to M. humile var. glaberrimum (Ericaceae, Monotropoideae)
Published in
Journal of Plant Research, April 2008
DOI 10.1007/s10265-008-0157-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hirokazu Tsukaya, Jun Yokoyama, Ryoko Imaichi, Hideaki Ohba

Abstract

Taxonomic treatment of the achlorophyllous monotropoid plant Monotropastrum humile is still unclear and confusing because of the lack of detailed morphological analyses and molecular phylogeny. In particular, the taxonomic status of a glabrous variety, M. humile var. glaberrimum, is under debate. Our detailed examination of the morphological characteristics of living plants revealed that M. humile var. glaberrimum can be easily distinguished from the putative conspecific taxon M. humile var. humile by characteristics not previously recognized, namely the shape and color of the floral disc. Most morphological features characterizing Cheilotheca were also found in M. humile var. glaberrimum. Moreover, there was considerable nucleotide differentiation in the internal transcribed spacer (ITS)2 sequences of M. humile var. humile and var. glaberrimum. Molecular analysis of the phylogenetic relationship of M. humile var. humile, var. glaberrimum, and other monotropoids using ITS2 sequences showed that two varieties of M. humile formed a monophyletic clade with a member of a different genus, Monotropa L., but obvious phylogenetic relationships among these three taxa were not obtained. Thus we conclude that Monotropastrum humile var. glaberrimum should be treated as a distinct species. However, the generic affiliation of M. humile var. glaberrimum could not be determined because of its intermediate character state combination and the insufficient characterization of related species. We strongly suggest that Monotropastrum as a whole needs re-evaluation.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 4%
United States 1 4%
Unknown 22 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 25%
Student > Master 4 17%
Student > Bachelor 3 13%
Student > Postgraduate 2 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 8%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 3 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 71%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Engineering 1 4%
Unknown 4 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 08 May 2020.
All research outputs
#7,454,951
of 22,790,780 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Plant Research
#196
of 828 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,497
of 81,908 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Plant Research
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,790,780 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 828 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 81,908 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them