↓ Skip to main content

Fungal endophytes: diversity and functional roles

Overview of attention for article published in New Phytologist, February 2009
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 (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 tweeter
patent
1 patent
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
1069 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1424 Mendeley
citeulike
8 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
Fungal endophytes: diversity and functional roles
Published in
New Phytologist, February 2009
DOI 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2009.02773.x
Pubmed ID
Authors

R. J. Rodriguez, J. F. White Jr, A. E. Arnold, R. S. Redman

Abstract

All plants in natural ecosystems appear to be symbiotic with fungal endophytes. This highly diverse group of fungi can have profound impacts on plant communities through increasing fitness by conferring abiotic and biotic stress tolerance, increasing biomass and decreasing water consumption, or decreasing fitness by altering resource allocation. Despite more than 100 yr of research resulting in thousands of journal articles, the ecological significance of these fungi remains poorly characterized. Historically, two endophytic groups (clavicipitaceous (C) and nonclavicipitaceous (NC)) have been discriminated based on phylogeny and life history traits. Here, we show that NC-endophytes represent three distinct functional groups based on host colonization and transmission, in planta biodiversity and fitness benefits conferred to hosts. Using this framework, we contrast the life histories, interactions with hosts and potential roles in plant ecophysiology of C- and NC-endophytes, and highlight several key questions for future work in endophyte biology.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 1,424 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 36 3%
Canada 6 <1%
Brazil 6 <1%
France 5 <1%
India 4 <1%
Germany 4 <1%
China 3 <1%
Argentina 3 <1%
South Africa 3 <1%
Other 39 3%
Unknown 1315 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 347 24%
Student > Bachelor 244 17%
Student > Master 224 16%
Researcher 221 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 95 7%
Other 293 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 949 67%
Environmental Science 120 8%
Unspecified 113 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 98 7%
Chemistry 54 4%
Other 90 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 01 October 2017.
All research outputs
#554,063
of 12,349,332 outputs
Outputs from New Phytologist
#435
of 4,963 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,904
of 100,786 outputs
Outputs of similar age from New Phytologist
#1
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,349,332 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 4,963 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 100,786 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 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 97% of its contemporaries.