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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Arguments for and against self and non-self root recognition in plants
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Plant Science, November 2014
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpls.2014.00614 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stephen Depuydt |
| Abstract |
Root-root interaction research gained more and more attention over the past few years. Roots are pivotal for plant survival because they ensure uptake of water and nutrients. Therefore, detection of adjacent roots might lead to competitive advantages. Several lines of experimental evidence suggest that roots have ways to discriminate non-related roots, kin, and-importantly-that they can sense self/non-self roots to avoid intra-plant competition. In this mini-review, the existence of self/non-self recognition in plant roots will be discussed and the current knowledge on the mechanisms that could be involved will be summarized. Although the process of identity recognition is still not completely understood, interesting data are available and emerging new technologies will certainly aid to better understand this research field that can have an important biological, ecological, and agricultural impact. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 2% |
| Czechia | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Estonia | 1 | <1% |
| Argentina | 1 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 112 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 23 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 19 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 14% |
| Researcher | 14 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 27 | 22% |
| Unknown | 15 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 70 | 57% |
| Environmental Science | 17 | 14% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 7% |
| Chemistry | 3 | 2% |
| Mathematics | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 3 | 2% |
| Unknown | 20 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 10 February 2015.
All research outputs
#16,048,009
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#9,646
of 24,598 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,887
of 276,328 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#92
of 224 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 24,598 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 276,328 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 224 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 55% of its contemporaries.