↓ Skip to main content

Processes entangling interactions in communities: forbidden links are more important than abundance in a hummingbird–plant network

Overview of attention for article published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
188 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
303 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
Processes entangling interactions in communities: forbidden links are more important than abundance in a hummingbird–plant network
Published in
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, April 2014
DOI 10.1098/rspb.2013.2397
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeferson Vizentin-Bugoni, Pietro Kiyoshi Maruyama, Marlies Sazima

Abstract

Understanding the relative importance of multiple processes on structuring species interactions within communities is one of the major challenges in ecology. Here, we evaluated the relative importance of species abundance and forbidden links in structuring a hummingbird-plant interaction network from the Atlantic rainforest in Brazil. Our results show that models incorporating phenological overlapping and morphological matches were more accurate in predicting the observed interactions than models considering species abundance. This means that forbidden links, by imposing constraints on species interactions, play a greater role than species abundance in structuring the ecological network. We also show that using the frequency of interaction as a proxy for species abundance and network metrics to describe the detailed network structure might lead to biased conclusions regarding mechanisms generating network structure. Together, our findings suggest that species abundance can be a less important driver of species interactions in communities than previously thought.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 303 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 8 3%
Argentina 2 <1%
France 1 <1%
Costa Rica 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 285 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 59 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 56 18%
Researcher 38 13%
Student > Bachelor 36 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 24 8%
Other 39 13%
Unknown 51 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 172 57%
Environmental Science 53 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 <1%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 <1%
Other 7 2%
Unknown 62 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 08 November 2014.
All research outputs
#14,615,224
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
#9,599
of 11,340 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,287
of 241,262 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
#148
of 186 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,340 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.4. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 241,262 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 186 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.