↓ Skip to main content

How to Handle Speciose Clades? Mass Taxon-Sampling as a Strategy towards Illuminating the Natural History of Campanula (Campanuloideae)

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
78 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 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.
Title
How to Handle Speciose Clades? Mass Taxon-Sampling as a Strategy towards Illuminating the Natural History of Campanula (Campanuloideae)
Published in
PLOS ONE, November 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0050076
Pubmed ID
Authors

Guilhem Mansion, Gerald Parolly, Andrew A. Crowl, Evgeny Mavrodiev, Nico Cellinese, Marine Oganesian, Katharina Fraunhofer, Georgia Kamari, Dimitrios Phitos, Rosemarie Haberle, Galip Akaydin, Nursel Ikinci, Thomas Raus, Thomas Borsch

Abstract

Speciose clades usually harbor species with a broad spectrum of adaptive strategies and complex distribution patterns, and thus constitute ideal systems to disentangle biotic and abiotic causes underlying species diversification. The delimitation of such study systems to test evolutionary hypotheses is difficult because they often rely on artificial genus concepts as starting points. One of the most prominent examples is the bellflower genus Campanula with some 420 species, but up to 600 species when including all lineages to which Campanula is paraphyletic. We generated a large alignment of petD group II intron sequences to include more than 70% of described species as a reference. By comparison with partial data sets we could then assess the impact of selective taxon sampling strategies on phylogenetic reconstruction and subsequent evolutionary conclusions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 3%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 56 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 29%
Researcher 16 27%
Student > Master 8 14%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Professor 3 5%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 7 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 42 71%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 8%
Environmental Science 3 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Chemistry 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 09 December 2012.
All research outputs
#18,323,689
of 22,689,790 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#153,905
of 193,655 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#215,148
of 277,211 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#3,453
of 4,740 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,689,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,655 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 277,211 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,740 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.