↓ Skip to main content

Developmental program impacts phenological plasticity of spring wheat under drought

Overview of attention for article published in Botanical Studies, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
Title
Developmental program impacts phenological plasticity of spring wheat under drought
Published in
Botanical Studies, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40529-016-0149-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marwa N. M. E. Sanad, Kimberley Garland Campbell, Kulvinder S. Gill

Abstract

Developing drought-tolerant crops critically depends on the efficient response of a genotype to the limited water availability, a trait known as phenological plasticity. Our understanding of the phenological plasticity remains limited, in particular, about its relationships with plant developmental program. Here, we examined the plastic response of spring wheat at tillering, booting, heading, and anthesis stages to constant or periodic drought stress. The response was assessed by morphological and physiological parameters including symptoms. The dynamics of morphological symptoms were indicators of the plasticity identification of drought. We found that spring wheat exhibits higher phenological plasticity during tillering stage followed by the heading stage, while booting and anthesis stages are the most sensitive. Also, the adaptive response is thought to be influenced with the plant height genes. Furthermore, periodic stress caused more pronounced inhibition of yield than the constant stress, with limited resistance resolution under long period. Our study shows the importance of considering the phenological plasticity in designing screens for drought tolerance in spring wheat and proposes tillering as the most informative stage for capturing genotypes with tolerance to limit water availability.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 33%
Student > Bachelor 4 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 8%
Professor 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 5 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 46%
Environmental Science 2 8%
Engineering 2 8%
Computer Science 1 4%
Unknown 8 33%

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 10 June 2017.
All research outputs
#6,492,939
of 11,342,318 outputs
Outputs from Botanical Studies
#28
of 92 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,203
of 253,342 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Botanical Studies
#2
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,342,318 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 92 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 253,342 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.