↓ Skip to main content

How does pedogenesis drive plant diversity?

Overview of attention for article published in Trends in Ecology & Evolution, June 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)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
88 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
322 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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 does pedogenesis drive plant diversity?
Published in
Trends in Ecology & Evolution, June 2013
DOI 10.1016/j.tree.2013.02.008
Pubmed ID
Authors

Etienne Laliberté, James B. Grace, Michael A. Huston, Hans Lambers, François P. Teste, Benjamin L. Turner, David A. Wardle

Abstract

Some of the most species-rich plant communities occur on ancient, strongly weathered soils, whereas those on recently developed soils tend to be less diverse. Mechanisms underlying this well-known pattern, however, remain unresolved. Here, we present a conceptual model describing alternative mechanisms by which pedogenesis (the process of soil formation) might drive plant diversity. We suggest that long-term soil chronosequences offer great, yet largely untapped, potential as 'natural experiments' to determine edaphic controls over plant diversity. Finally, we discuss how our conceptual model can be evaluated quantitatively using structural equation modeling to advance multivariate theories about the determinants of local plant diversity. This should help us to understand broader-scale diversity patterns, such as the latitudinal gradient of plant diversity.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 322 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 4 1%
United States 4 1%
South Africa 3 <1%
Argentina 2 <1%
China 2 <1%
Japan 2 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Other 6 2%
Unknown 296 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 81 25%
Researcher 66 20%
Student > Master 53 16%
Student > Bachelor 19 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 6%
Other 84 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 174 54%
Environmental Science 84 26%
Unspecified 31 10%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 23 7%
Engineering 4 1%
Other 6 2%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 17 April 2013.
All research outputs
#2,521,742
of 12,089,023 outputs
Outputs from Trends in Ecology & Evolution
#1,082
of 2,068 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,005
of 130,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trends in Ecology & Evolution
#9
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,089,023 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,068 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.5. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 130,090 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 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.