↓ Skip to main content

Interaction type influences ecological network structure more than local abiotic conditions: evidence from endophytic and endolichenic fungi at a continental scale

Overview of attention for article published in Oecologia, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
130 Mendeley
Title
Interaction type influences ecological network structure more than local abiotic conditions: evidence from endophytic and endolichenic fungi at a continental scale
Published in
Oecologia, September 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00442-015-3457-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pierre-Luc Chagnon, Jana M. U’Ren, Jolanta Miadlikowska, François Lutzoni, A. Elizabeth Arnold

Abstract

Understanding the factors that shape community assembly remains one of the most enduring and important questions in modern ecology. Network theory can reveal rules of community assembly within and across study systems and suggest novel hypotheses regarding the formation and stability of communities. However, such studies generally face the challenge of disentangling the relative influence of factors such as interaction type and environmental conditions on shaping communities and associated networks. Endophytic and endolichenic symbioses, characterized by microbial species that occur within healthy plants and lichen thalli, represent some of the most ubiquitous interactions in nature. Fungi that engage in these symbioses are hyperdiverse, often horizontally transmitted, and functionally beneficial in many cases, and they represent the diversification of multiple phylogenetic groups. We evaluated six measures of ecological network structure for >4100 isolates of endophytic and endolichenic fungi collected systematically from five sites across North America. Our comparison of these co-occurring interactions in biomes ranging from tundra to subtropical forest showed that the type of interactions (i.e., endophytic vs. endolichenic) had a much more pronounced influence on network structure than did environmental conditions. In particular, endophytic networks were less nested, less connected, and more modular than endolichenic networks in all sites. The consistency of the network structure within each interaction type, independent of site, is encouraging for current efforts devoted to gathering metadata on ecological network structure at a global scale. We discuss several mechanisms potentially responsible for such patterns and draw attention to knowledge gaps in our understanding of networks for diverse interaction types.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 130 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Unknown 128 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 26%
Researcher 20 15%
Student > Master 13 10%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Student > Postgraduate 8 6%
Other 25 19%
Unknown 20 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 66 51%
Environmental Science 16 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Mathematics 2 2%
Other 7 5%
Unknown 25 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 06 May 2016.
All research outputs
#14,239,245
of 22,829,683 outputs
Outputs from Oecologia
#3,074
of 4,220 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#141,927
of 274,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oecologia
#33
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,683 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,220 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 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 274,379 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.