↓ Skip to main content

A strong ‘filter’ effect of the East China Sea land bridge for East Asia’s temperate plant species: inferences from molecular phylogeography and ecological niche modelling of Platycrater arguta(Hydrang…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Evolutionary Biology, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 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
A strong ‘filter’ effect of the East China Sea land bridge for East Asia’s temperate plant species: inferences from molecular phylogeography and ecological niche modelling of Platycrater arguta(Hydrangeaceae)
Published in
BMC Evolutionary Biology, March 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2148-14-41
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xin-Shuai Qi, Na Yuan, Hans Peter Comes, Shota Sakaguchi, Ying-Xiong Qiu

Abstract

In East Asia, an increasing number of studies on temperate forest tree species find evidence for migration and gene exchange across the East China Sea (ECS) land bridge up until the last glacial maximum (LGM). However, it is less clear when and how lineages diverged in this region, whether in full isolation or in the face of post-divergence gene flow. Here, we investigate the effects of Quaternary changes in climate and sea level on the evolutionary and demographic history of Platycrater arguta, a rare temperate understorey shrub with disjunct distributions in East China (var. sinensis) and South Japan (var. arguta). Molecular data were obtained from 14 P. arguta populations to infer current patterns of molecular structure and diversity in relation to past (Last Interglacial and Last Glacial Maximum) and present distributions based on ecological niche modelling (ENM). A coalescent-based isolation-with-migration (IM) model was used to estimate lineage divergence times and population demographic parameters.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 24%
Researcher 14 21%
Student > Master 7 11%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Other 3 5%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 12 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 35 53%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 11%
Environmental Science 4 6%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 3 5%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 13 20%

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 07 March 2014.
All research outputs
#9,906,256
of 12,373,386 outputs
Outputs from BMC Evolutionary Biology
#2,053
of 2,341 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131,425
of 193,862 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Evolutionary Biology
#20
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,373,386 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,341 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 193,862 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.