↓ Skip to main content

Phylogenetic niche conservatism: what are the underlying evolutionary and ecological causes?

Overview of attention for article published in New Phytologist, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Readers on

mendeley
688 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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
Phylogenetic niche conservatism: what are the underlying evolutionary and ecological causes?
Published in
New Phytologist, September 2012
DOI 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2012.04298.x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael D Crisp, Lyn G Cook

Abstract

Phylogenetic niche conservatism (PNC) is the tendency of lineages to retain their niche-related traits through speciation events. A recent surge in the availability of well-sampled molecular phylogenies has stimulated phylogenetic approaches to understanding ecological processes at large geographical scales and through macroevolutionary time. We stress that PNC is a pattern, not a process, and is found only in some traits and some lineages. At the simplest level, a pattern of PNC is an inevitable consequence of evolution - descent with modification and divergence of lineages - but several intrinsic causes, including physicochemical, developmental and genetic constraints, can lead directly to a marked pattern of PNC. A pattern of PNC can also be caused indirectly, as a by-product of other causes, such as extinction, dispersal limitation, competition and predation. Recognition of patterns of PNC can contribute to understanding macroevolutionary processes: for example, release from constraint in traits has been hypothesized to trigger adaptive radiations such as that of the angiosperms. Given the multiple causes of patterns of PNC, tests should address explicit questions about hypothesized processes. We conclude that PNC is a scientifically useful concept with applications to the practice of ecological research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 688 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 15 2%
Brazil 14 2%
Colombia 3 <1%
Germany 3 <1%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Switzerland 2 <1%
South Africa 2 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Cuba 1 <1%
Other 13 2%
Unknown 631 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 152 22%
Researcher 122 18%
Student > Master 88 13%
Student > Bachelor 65 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 50 7%
Other 140 20%
Unknown 71 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 421 61%
Environmental Science 105 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 28 4%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 16 2%
Unspecified 5 <1%
Other 20 3%
Unknown 93 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 21 April 2020.
All research outputs
#7,192,016
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from New Phytologist
#5,550
of 10,109 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,577
of 191,855 outputs
Outputs of similar age from New Phytologist
#28
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,109 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 191,855 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 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 64% of its contemporaries.