↓ Skip to main content

Costs and benefits of reticulate leaf venation

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Plant Biology, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 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
Costs and benefits of reticulate leaf venation
Published in
BMC Plant Biology, September 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12870-014-0234-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Charles A Price, Joshua S Weitz

Abstract

BackgroundRecent theoretical and empirical work has identified redundancy as one of the benefits of the reticulate form in the evolution of leaf vein networks. However, we know little about the costs of redundancy or how those costs depend on vein network geometry or topology. Here, we examined both costs and benefits to redundancy in 339 individual reticulate leaf networks comprising over 3.5 million vein segments. We compared levels of costs and benefits within reticulate networks to those within analogous networks without loops known as Maximum Spanning Trees (MSTs).ResultsWe show that network robustness to varying degrees of simulated damage is positively correlated with structural indices of redundancy. We further show that leaf vein networks are topologically, geometrically and functionally more redundant than are MSTs. However, increased redundancy comes with minor costs in terms of increases in material allocation or decreases in conductance. We also show that full networks do not markedly decrease the distance to non-vein tissue in comparison to MSTs.ConclusionsThese results suggest the evolutionary transition to the reticulate type of networks found in modern Angiosperm flora involved a relatively minor increase in material and conductance costs with significant benefits in terms of network redundancy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 63 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 24%
Student > Master 9 14%
Researcher 8 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 15 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 33%
Environmental Science 7 11%
Physics and Astronomy 4 6%
Engineering 3 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 11 17%
Unknown 15 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 29 September 2014.
All research outputs
#14,201,088
of 22,764,165 outputs
Outputs from BMC Plant Biology
#1,152
of 3,236 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#129,209
of 250,572 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Plant Biology
#17
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,764,165 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,236 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 250,572 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.