↓ Skip to main content

Survival and Growth of Epiphytic Ferns Depend on Resource Sharing

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Plant Science, March 2016
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 (81st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
29 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
Survival and Growth of Epiphytic Ferns Depend on Resource Sharing
Published in
Frontiers in Plant Science, March 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpls.2016.00416
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hua-Zheng Lu, Liang Song, Wen-Yao Liu, Xing-Liang Xu, Yue-Hua Hu, Xian-Meng Shi, Su Li, Wen-Zhang Ma, Yan-Fen Chang, Ze-Xin Fan, Shu-Gang Lu, Yi Wu, Fei-Hai Yu

Abstract

Locally available resources can be shared within clonal plant systems through physiological integration, thus enhancing their survival and growth. Most epiphytes exhibit clonal growth habit, but few studies have tested effects of physiological integration (resource sharing) on survival and growth of epiphytes and whether such effects vary with species. We conducted two experiments, one on individuals (single ramets) and another on groups (several ramets within a plot), with severed and intact rhizome treatments (without and with physiological integration) on two dominant epiphytic ferns (Polypodiodes subamoena and Lepisorus scolopendrium) in a subtropical montane moist forest in Southwest China. Rhizome severing (preventing integration) significantly reduced ramet survival in the individual experiment and number of surviving ramets in the group experiment, and it also decreased biomass of both species in both experiments. However, the magnitude of such integration effects did not vary significantly between the two species. We conclude that resource sharing may be a general strategy for clonal epiphytes to adapt to forest canopies where resources are limited and heterogeneously distributed in space and time.

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 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 17%
Student > Bachelor 4 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 10%
Student > Master 3 10%
Other 2 7%
Other 6 21%
Unknown 6 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 55%
Unspecified 1 3%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Engineering 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 9 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 03 April 2016.
All research outputs
#3,205,227
of 22,858,915 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#1,636
of 20,216 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,536
of 301,001 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#34
of 504 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,858,915 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 20,216 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. 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 301,001 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 504 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 92% of its contemporaries.