↓ Skip to main content

Networks of plants: how to measure similarity in vegetable species

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, January 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 (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
22 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
Title
Networks of plants: how to measure similarity in vegetable species
Published in
Scientific Reports, January 2016
DOI 10.1038/srep27077
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gianna Vivaldo, Elisa Masi, Camilla Pandolfi, Stefano Mancuso, Guido Caldarelli

Abstract

Despite the common misconception of nearly static organisms, plants do interact continuously with the environment and with each other. It is fair to assume that during their evolution they developed particular features to overcome similar problems and to exploit possibilities from environment. In this paper we introduce various quantitative measures based on recent advancements in complex network theory that allow to measure the effective similarities of various species. By using this approach on the similarity in fruit-typology ecological traits we obtain a clear plant classification in a way similar to traditional taxonomic classification. This result is not trivial, since a similar analysis done on the basis of diaspore morphological properties do not provide any clear parameter to classify plants species. Complex network theory can then be used in order to determine which feature amongst many can be used to distinguish scope and possibly evolution of plants. Future uses of this approach range from functional classification to quantitative determination of plant communities in nature.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Estonia 1 4%
Indonesia 1 4%
Mexico 1 4%
Italy 1 4%
Japan 1 4%
United States 1 4%
Unknown 19 76%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 28%
Student > Master 4 16%
Student > Bachelor 3 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 12%
Professor 2 8%
Other 6 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 40%
Unspecified 5 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 12%
Environmental Science 2 8%
Mathematics 1 4%
Other 4 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 October 2017.
All research outputs
#1,002,989
of 12,131,012 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#8,605
of 54,140 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,224
of 278,113 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#513
of 3,244 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,131,012 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 54,140 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 278,113 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,244 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.