| Title |
Pursuing the big questions about interspecific mutualism: a review of theoretical approaches
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Oecologia, November 2000
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s004420000496 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jason D. Hoeksema, Emilio M. Bruna |
| Abstract |
Along with increases in empirical information about interspecific mutualisms have come both new and refined questions about them. These questions have spurred diversification in the theoretical approaches being applied to interspecific mutualism. This theoretical literature has become large and potentially confusing, but as a whole is very relevant to answering the current important questions about mutualism. We first present three important questions about mutualisms raised by recent empirical results. (1) What factors control whether interactions become mutualistic or parasitic? (2) Why are highly specialized mutualisms rare and what are the implications of this observation? (3) What is the impact of trophic complexity on the functioning of mutualisms? Second, we highlight results of recent models of mutualism that address at least one of the three questions, and point to potentially rewarding avenues of exploration for these modeling approaches. This review should be useful to both empiricists and theorists as a roadmap to both the variety of theory currently being applied to mutualisms and to results that are in need of additional theoretical and empirical exploration. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 435 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 20 | 5% |
| Brazil | 9 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 6 | 1% |
| Argentina | 3 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 2 | <1% |
| France | 2 | <1% |
| Colombia | 2 | <1% |
| Italy | 2 | <1% |
| China | 2 | <1% |
| Other | 17 | 4% |
| Unknown | 370 | 85% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 102 | 23% |
| Researcher | 98 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 54 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 36 | 8% |
| Professor | 33 | 8% |
| Other | 82 | 19% |
| Unknown | 30 | 7% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 292 | 67% |
| Environmental Science | 57 | 13% |
| Psychology | 7 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 1% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | <1% |
| Other | 17 | 4% |
| Unknown | 53 | 12% |
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 26 October 2022.
All research outputs
#7,471,048
of 22,840,638 outputs
Outputs from Oecologia
#1,678
of 4,221 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,848
of 39,595 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oecologia
#6
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,840,638 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 4,221 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 39,595 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.