↓ Skip to main content

Does a facultative mutualism limit species range expansion?

Overview of attention for article published in Oecologia, March 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
127 Mendeley
Title
Does a facultative mutualism limit species range expansion?
Published in
Oecologia, March 2011
DOI 10.1007/s00442-011-1958-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

John Stanton-Geddes, Carolyn G. Anderson

Abstract

The availability and quality of mutualists beyond a species' range edge may limit range expansion. With the legume Chamaecrista fasciculata, we asked to what extent the availability and quality of rhizobia beyond the range edge limits host range expansion. We tested the effect of rhizobia availability on plant growth by transplanting seed from three locations into five sites spanning C. fasciculata's range (interior, at the northern and western range edges, and beyond the range edges), and inoculating half the seeds with rhizobia. We recorded growth of all surviving plants, and, for the uninoculated plants, whether they had formed nodules or not. We isolated rhizobia from nodules collected on the uninoculated plants, and cross-inoculated seed from four populations (both range edge and interior populations) in the greenhouse to determine whether the quality of rhizobia differed between regions. We found that seeds transplanted beyond the range edge were less likely to be nodulated when they were not experimentally inoculated, and there was benefit to inoculation at all sites. In the greenhouse, the three inocula that formed nodules on plants, from the range interior, northern edge and beyond the northern edge, did not detectably differ in their effect on plant growth. These results suggest that low densities of suitable rhizobia beyond the range edge may limit range expansion of legume species.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 4%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 117 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 22%
Researcher 26 20%
Student > Master 13 10%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Professor 9 7%
Other 22 17%
Unknown 19 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 84 66%
Environmental Science 12 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 3 2%
Unspecified 2 2%
Other 3 2%
Unknown 20 16%
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 21 July 2021.
All research outputs
#7,454,951
of 22,790,780 outputs
Outputs from Oecologia
#1,675
of 4,213 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,352
of 108,870 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oecologia
#7
of 19 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 4,213 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 108,870 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.