↓ Skip to main content

Is self‐fertilization an evolutionary dead end?

Overview of attention for article published in New Phytologist, February 2013
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 (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
bluesky
1 Bluesky user

Readers on

mendeley
330 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
Is self‐fertilization an evolutionary dead end?
Published in
New Phytologist, February 2013
DOI 10.1111/nph.12182
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

A compound hypothesis positing that self-fertilization is an evolutionary dead end conflates two distinct claims: the transition from outcrossing to selfing is unidirectional; and the diversification rate, or the balance of the speciation and extinction rate, is negative for selfing species. Both claims have enjoyed widespread informal support for decades, but have recently come under suspicion. Sources of data that apparently contradict strongly asymmetric mating system transitions often rely on statistical phylogenetic tests plagued by profound flaws. Although recently developed models mend preceding approaches, they have been employed sparingly, and many problems remain. Theoretical investigations, genetic data and applications of new phylogenetic methods provide indirect support for an association of selfing with negative diversification rates. We lack direct tests of reversals from selfing to outcrossing, and require data concerning the genetic basis and complexity of independently evolved outcrossing adaptations. The identification of the mechanisms that limit the longevity of selfing lineages has been difficult. Limitations may include brief and variable durations of selfing lineages, as well as ongoing difficulties in relating additive genetic and nucleotide variation. Furthermore, a common line of evidence for the stability of mixed mating - based simply on its frequent occurrence - is misleading. We make specific suggestions for research programs that aim to provide a richer understanding of mating system evolution and seriously challenge Stebbins' venerable hypothesis.

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 12 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 330 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 5 2%
France 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Other 3 <1%
Unknown 312 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 84 25%
Researcher 65 20%
Student > Master 36 11%
Student > Bachelor 24 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 24 7%
Other 64 19%
Unknown 33 10%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 228 69%
Environmental Science 22 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 22 7%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 6 2%
Computer Science 2 <1%
Other 7 2%
Unknown 43 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 02 June 2019.
All research outputs
#6,203,362
of 32,483,281 outputs
Outputs from New Phytologist
#4,859
of 11,898 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,877
of 228,816 outputs
Outputs of similar age from New Phytologist
#28
of 125 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,483,281 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,898 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 228,816 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 125 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.