↓ Skip to main content

Rain pollination provides reproductive assurance in a deceptive orchid

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Botany, July 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
5 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
6 Wikipedia pages

Readers on

mendeley
81 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Rain pollination provides reproductive assurance in a deceptive orchid
Published in
Annals of Botany, July 2012
DOI 10.1093/aob/mcs165
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Abiotic pollination by wind or water is well established in flowering plants. In some species pollination by rain splashes, a condition known as ombrophily, has been proposed as a floral strategy. However, evidence for this type of abiotic pollination has remained controversial and many reported cases have subsequently been shown to be false. This study investigates ombrophily in the deceptive orchid Acampe rigida to determine the mechanism by which this species is able to maintain high fecundity, despite flowering during the rainy season in south-west China when pollinators are scarce.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Belgium 1 1%
Unknown 78 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 17%
Researcher 12 15%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 6%
Other 16 20%
Unknown 12 15%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 45 56%
Environmental Science 8 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Engineering 2 2%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 16 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 June 2026.
All research outputs
#2,990,058
of 28,840,878 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Botany
#576
of 4,207 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,052
of 186,577 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Botany
#3
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 28,840,878 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,207 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 186,577 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.