↓ Skip to main content

A quantitative review of pollination syndromes: do floral traits predict effective pollinators?

Overview of attention for article published in Ecology Letters, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
24 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
185 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
736 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
A quantitative review of pollination syndromes: do floral traits predict effective pollinators?
Published in
Ecology Letters, January 2014
DOI 10.1111/ele.12224
Pubmed ID
Authors

Víctor Rosas-Guerrero, Ramiro Aguilar, Silvana Martén-Rodríguez, Lorena Ashworth, Martha Lopezaraiza-Mikel, Jesús M. Bastida, Mauricio Quesada

Abstract

The idea of pollination syndromes has been largely discussed but no formal quantitative evaluation has yet been conducted across angiosperms. We present the first systematic review of pollination syndromes that quantitatively tests whether the most effective pollinators for a species can be inferred from suites of floral traits for 417 plant species. Our results support the syndrome concept, indicating that convergent floral evolution is driven by adaptation to the most effective pollinator group. The predictability of pollination syndromes is greater in pollinator-dependent species and in plants from tropical regions. Many plant species also have secondary pollinators that generally correspond to the ancestral pollinators documented in evolutionary studies. We discuss the utility and limitations of pollination syndromes and the role of secondary pollinators to understand floral ecology and evolution.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 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 736 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 9 1%
Germany 7 <1%
United States 7 <1%
Colombia 2 <1%
Finland 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Taiwan 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Other 9 1%
Unknown 694 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 161 22%
Student > Master 143 19%
Student > Bachelor 106 14%
Researcher 105 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 48 7%
Other 111 15%
Unknown 62 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 497 68%
Environmental Science 109 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 19 3%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 9 1%
Chemistry 3 <1%
Other 21 3%
Unknown 78 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. 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 18 October 2019.
All research outputs
#701,337
of 14,644,185 outputs
Outputs from Ecology Letters
#505
of 2,290 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,684
of 257,898 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ecology Letters
#16
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,644,185 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,290 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 257,898 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.