↓ Skip to main content

Using niche breadth theory to explain generalization in mutualisms

Overview of attention for article published in Ecology, March 2018
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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
34 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
180 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
Using niche breadth theory to explain generalization in mutualisms
Published in
Ecology, March 2018
DOI 10.1002/ecy.2188
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

For a mutualism to remain evolutionarily stable, theory predicts that mutualists should limit their associations to high-quality partners. However, most mutualists either simultaneously or sequentially associate with multiple partners that confer the same type of reward. By viewing mutualisms through the lens of niche breadth evolution, we outline how the environment shapes partner availability and relative quality, and ultimately a focal mutualist's partner breadth. We argue that mutualists that associate with multiple partners may have a selective advantage compared to specialists for many reasons, including sampling, complementarity, and portfolio effects, as well as the possibility that broad partner breadth increases breadth along other niche axes. Furthermore, selection for narrow partner breadth is unlikely to be strong when the environment erodes variation in partner quality, reduces the costs of interacting with low-quality partners, spatially structures partner communities, or decreases the strength of mutualism. Thus, we should not be surprised that most mutualists have broad partner breadth, even if it allows for ineffective partners to persist. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

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.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 34 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 180 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 180 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 44 24%
Student > Master 25 14%
Student > Bachelor 22 12%
Researcher 22 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 5%
Other 17 9%
Unknown 41 23%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 88 49%
Environmental Science 23 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 1%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 1%
Other 10 6%
Unknown 47 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 May 2018.
All research outputs
#1,676,730
of 31,798,539 outputs
Outputs from Ecology
#662
of 7,935 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,991
of 361,082 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ecology
#15
of 75 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 31,798,539 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,935 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 361,082 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 75 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.