↓ Skip to main content

Up in the Tree – The Overlooked Richness of Bryophytes and Lichens in Tree Crowns

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, December 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 (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 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
Up in the Tree – The Overlooked Richness of Bryophytes and Lichens in Tree Crowns
Published in
PLOS ONE, December 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0084913
Pubmed ID
Authors

Steffen Boch, Jörg Müller, Daniel Prati, Stefan Blaser, Markus Fischer

Abstract

Assessing diversity is among the major tasks in ecology and conservation science. In ecological and conservation studies, epiphytic cryptogams are usually sampled up to accessible heights in forests. Thus, their diversity, especially of canopy specialists, likely is underestimated. If the proportion of those species differs among forest types, plot-based diversity assessments are biased and may result in misleading conservation recommendations. We sampled bryophytes and lichens in 30 forest plots of 20 m × 20 m in three German regions, considering all substrates, and including epiphytic litter fall. First, the sampling of epiphytic species was restricted to the lower 2 m of trees and shrubs. Then, on one representative tree per plot, we additionally recorded epiphytic species in the crown, using tree climbing techniques. Per tree, on average 54% of lichen and 20% of bryophyte species were overlooked if the crown was not been included. After sampling all substrates per plot, including the bark of all shrubs and trees, still 38% of the lichen and 4% of the bryophyte species were overlooked if the tree crown of the sampled tree was not included. The number of overlooked lichen species varied strongly among regions. Furthermore, the number of overlooked bryophyte and lichen species per plot was higher in European beech than in coniferous stands and increased with increasing diameter at breast height of the sampled tree. Thus, our results indicate a bias of comparative studies which might have led to misleading conservation recommendations of plot-based diversity assessments.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users 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 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
Mexico 1 2%
Switzerland 1 2%
Unknown 62 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 18%
Student > Master 10 15%
Researcher 9 14%
Student > Bachelor 9 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 6%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 9 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 38 58%
Environmental Science 6 9%
Arts and Humanities 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Unspecified 1 2%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 14 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 27 December 2013.
All research outputs
#2,948,390
of 24,590,593 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#36,729
of 212,406 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,196
of 297,151 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#967
of 5,545 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,590,593 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 212,406 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 297,151 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 5,545 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.