↓ Skip to main content

A comparative analysis of genetic variation in rootstocks and scions of old olive trees – a window into the history of olive cultivation practices and past genetic variation

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Plant Biology, May 2014
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 (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
61 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 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 comparative analysis of genetic variation in rootstocks and scions of old olive trees – a window into the history of olive cultivation practices and past genetic variation
Published in
BMC Plant Biology, May 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2229-14-146
Pubmed ID
Authors

Oz Barazani, Erik Westberg, Nir Hanin, Arnon Dag, Zohar Kerem, Yizhar Tugendhaft, Mohammed Hmidat, Thameen Hijawi, Joachim W Kadereit

Abstract

Past clonal propagation of olive trees is intimately linked to grafting. However, evidence on grafting in ancient trees is scarce, and not much is known about the source of plant material used for rootstocks. Here, the Simple Sequence Repeat (SSR) marker technique was used to study genetic diversity of rootstocks and scions in ancient olive trees from the Levant and its implications for past cultivation of olives. Leaf samples were collected from tree canopies (scions) and shoots growing from the trunk base (suckers). A total of 310 trees were sampled in 32 groves and analyzed with 14 SSR markers.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 52 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Student > Master 5 9%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 10 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 33 60%
Arts and Humanities 5 9%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 4 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Unspecified 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 11 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 18 May 2015.
All research outputs
#4,312,359
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from BMC Plant Biology
#272
of 3,588 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,116
of 241,293 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Plant Biology
#7
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,588 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 241,293 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.