↓ Skip to main content

Microevolutionary processes impact macroevolutionary patterns

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Evolutionary Biology, August 2018
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 (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
15 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
117 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
Microevolutionary processes impact macroevolutionary patterns
Published in
BMC Evolutionary Biology, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12862-018-1236-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jingchun Li, Jen-Pen Huang, Jeet Sukumaran, L. Lacey Knowles

Abstract

Macroevolutionary modeling of species diversification plays important roles in inferring large-scale biodiversity patterns. It allows estimation of speciation and extinction rates and statistically testing their relationships with different ecological factors. However, macroevolutionary patterns are ultimately generated by microevolutionary processes acting at population levels, especially when speciation and extinction are considered protracted instead of point events. Neglecting the connection between micro- and macroevolution may hinder our ability to fully understand the underlying mechanisms that drive the observed patterns. In this simulation study, we used the protracted speciation framework to demonstrate that distinct microevolutionary scenarios can generate very similar biodiversity patterns (e.g., latitudinal diversity gradient). We also showed that current macroevolutionary models may not be able to distinguish these different scenarios. Given the compounded nature of speciation and extinction rates, one needs to be cautious when inferring causal relationships between ecological factors and macroevolutioanry rates. Future studies that incorporate microevolutionary processes into current modeling approaches are in need.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 117 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 117 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 26 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 19%
Student > Master 13 11%
Researcher 12 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 9%
Other 13 11%
Unknown 21 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 50 43%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 19 16%
Environmental Science 8 7%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 3 3%
Linguistics 1 <1%
Other 8 7%
Unknown 28 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 27 January 2022.
All research outputs
#1,978,358
of 23,001,641 outputs
Outputs from BMC Evolutionary Biology
#415
of 2,916 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,195
of 330,849 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Evolutionary Biology
#8
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,001,641 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 2,916 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 330,849 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.