↓ Skip to main content

The diversity of floral temperature patterns, and their use by pollinators

Overview of attention for article published in eLife, December 2017
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 (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
105 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
The diversity of floral temperature patterns, and their use by pollinators
Published in
eLife, December 2017
DOI 10.7554/elife.31262
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael JM Harrap, Sean A Rands, Natalie Hempel de Ibarra, Heather M Whitney

Abstract

Pollinating insects utilise various sensory cues to identify and learn rewarding flower species. One such cue is floral temperature, created by captured sunlight or plant thermogenesis. Bumblebees, honeybees and stingless bees can distinguish flowers based on differences in overall temperature between flowers. We report here that floral temperature often differs between different parts of the flower creating a temperature structure or pattern. Temperature patterns are common, with 55% of 118 plant species thermographed, showing within-flower temperature differences greater than the 2°C difference that bees are known to be able to detect. Using differential conditioning techniques, we show that bumblebees can distinguish artificial flowers differing in temperature patterns comparable to those seen in real flowers. Thus, bumblebees are able to perceive the shape of these within-flower temperature patterns. Floral temperature patterns may therefore represent a new floral cue that could assist pollinators in the recognition and learning of rewarding flowers.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 67 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 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 105 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 25%
Researcher 15 14%
Student > Bachelor 14 13%
Student > Master 12 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Other 13 12%
Unknown 19 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 48 46%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 13%
Environmental Science 9 9%
Engineering 2 2%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 2%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 24 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 183. 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 January 2018.
All research outputs
#105,943
of 16,125,245 outputs
Outputs from eLife
#265
of 9,375 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,434
of 410,605 outputs
Outputs of similar age from eLife
#12
of 350 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,125,245 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,375 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 410,605 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 350 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.