↓ Skip to main content

How common is ecological speciation in plant-feeding insects? A 'Higher' Nematinae perspective

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Evolutionary Biology, January 2010
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 (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
3 blogs
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
85 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
149 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
How common is ecological speciation in plant-feeding insects? A 'Higher' Nematinae perspective
Published in
BMC Evolutionary Biology, January 2010
DOI 10.1186/1471-2148-10-266
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tommi Nyman, Veli Vikberg, David R Smith, Jean-Luc Boevé

Abstract

Ecological speciation is a process in which a transiently resource-polymorphic species divides into two specialized sister lineages as a result of divergent selection pressures caused by the use of multiple niches or environments. Ecology-based speciation has been studied intensively in plant-feeding insects, in which both sympatric and allopatric shifts onto novel host plants could speed up diversification. However, while numerous examples of species pairs likely to have originated by resource shifts have been found, the overall importance of ecological speciation in relation to other, non-ecological speciation modes remains unknown. Here, we apply phylogenetic information on sawflies belonging to the 'Higher' Nematinae (Hymenoptera: Tenthredinidae) to infer the frequency of niche shifts in relation to speciation events.

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 149 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 3%
Germany 2 1%
France 2 1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
Other 3 2%
Unknown 132 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 39 26%
Researcher 35 23%
Student > Master 14 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 13 9%
Student > Bachelor 10 7%
Other 26 17%
Unknown 12 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 112 75%
Environmental Science 11 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 3 2%
Arts and Humanities 1 <1%
Other 2 1%
Unknown 16 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 04 June 2014.
All research outputs
#1,162,398
of 17,361,274 outputs
Outputs from BMC Evolutionary Biology
#289
of 2,801 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,601
of 131,928 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Evolutionary Biology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,361,274 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,801 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 131,928 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them