↓ Skip to main content

Early Cretaceous Archaeamphora is not a carnivorous angiosperm

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Plant Science, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
8 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 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
Early Cretaceous Archaeamphora is not a carnivorous angiosperm
Published in
Frontiers in Plant Science, May 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpls.2015.00326
Pubmed ID
Authors

William Oki Wong, David Leonard Dilcher, Conrad C. Labandeira, Ge Sun, Andreas Fleischmann

Abstract

Archaeamphora longicervia H. Q. Li was described as an herbaceous, Sarraceniaceae-like pitcher plant from the mid Early Cretaceous Yixian Formation of Liaoning Province, northeastern China. Here, a re-investigation of A. longicervia specimens from the Yixian Formation provides new insights into its identity and the morphology of pitcher plants claimed by Li. We demonstrate that putative pitchers of Archaeamphora are insect-induced leaf galls that consist of three components: (1) an innermost larval chamber; (2) an intermediate zone of nutritive tissue; and (3) an outermost wall of sclerenchyma. Archaeamphora is not a carnivorous, Sarraceniaceae-like angiosperm, but represents insect-galled leaves of the previously reported gymnosperm Liaoningocladus boii G. Sun et al. from the Yixian Formation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 24%
Researcher 4 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 14%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Professor 1 5%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 4 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 48%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 10%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 5%
Unknown 6 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 14 April 2023.
All research outputs
#3,085,118
of 24,601,689 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#1,488
of 23,350 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,544
of 269,249 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#14
of 274 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,601,689 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 23,350 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 269,249 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 274 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 95% of its contemporaries.