↓ Skip to main content

Nobody’s perfect: can irregularities in pit structure influence vulnerability to cavitation?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Plant Science, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 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
Nobody’s perfect: can irregularities in pit structure influence vulnerability to cavitation?
Published in
Frontiers in Plant Science, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpls.2013.00453
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lenka Plavcová, Steven Jansen, Matthias Klepsch, Uwe G. Hacke

Abstract

Recent studies have suggested that species-specific pit properties such as pit membrane thickness, pit membrane porosity, torus-to-aperture diameter ratio and pit chamber depth influence xylem vulnerability to cavitation. Despite the indisputable importance of using mean pit characteristics, considerable variability in pit structure within a single species or even within a single pit field should be acknowledged. According to the rare pit hypothesis, a single pit that is more air-permeable than many neighboring pits is sufficient to allow air-seeding. Therefore, any irregularities or morphological abnormalities in pit structure allowing air-seeding should be associated with increased vulnerability to cavitation. Considering the currently proposed models of air-seeding, pit features such as rare, large pores in the pit membrane, torus extensions, and plasmodesmatal pores in a torus can represent potential glitches. These aberrations in pit structure could either result from inherent developmental flaws, or from damage caused to the pit membrane by chemical and physical agents. This suggests the existence of interesting feedbacks between abiotic and biotic stresses in xylem physiology.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Spain 1 2%
Unknown 62 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 34%
Researcher 16 25%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 6%
Student > Master 4 6%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 6 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 38 58%
Environmental Science 9 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Physics and Astronomy 2 3%
Chemistry 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 8 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 12 November 2013.
All research outputs
#20,209,145
of 22,729,647 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#15,891
of 19,995 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#248,798
of 280,769 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#241
of 517 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,729,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 19,995 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 280,769 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 517 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.