↓ Skip to main content

Tuned in: plant roots use sound to locate water

Overview of attention for article published in Oecologia, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#4 of 4,518)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
80 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
294 Mendeley
Title
Tuned in: plant roots use sound to locate water
Published in
Oecologia, April 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00442-017-3862-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Monica Gagliano, Mavra Grimonprez, Martial Depczynski, Michael Renton

Abstract

Because water is essential to life, organisms have evolved a wide range of strategies to cope with water limitations, including actively searching for their preferred moisture levels to avoid dehydration. Plants use moisture gradients to direct their roots through the soil once a water source is detected, but how they first detect the source is unknown. We used the model plant Pisum sativum to investigate the mechanism by which roots sense and locate water. We found that roots were able to locate a water source by sensing the vibrations generated by water moving inside pipes, even in the absence of substrate moisture. When both moisture and acoustic cues were available, roots preferentially used moisture in the soil over acoustic vibrations, suggesting that acoustic gradients enable roots to broadly detect a water source at a distance, while moisture gradients help them to reach their target more accurately. Our results also showed that the presence of noise affected the abilities of roots to perceive and respond correctly to the surrounding soundscape. These findings highlight the urgent need to better understand the ecological role of sound and the consequences of acoustic pollution for plant as well as animal populations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 168 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 294 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Estonia 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Luxembourg 1 <1%
Unknown 288 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 50 17%
Student > Bachelor 40 14%
Researcher 38 13%
Student > Master 34 12%
Professor 15 5%
Other 46 16%
Unknown 71 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 98 33%
Environmental Science 30 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 29 10%
Arts and Humanities 11 4%
Engineering 7 2%
Other 32 11%
Unknown 87 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 500. 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 25 March 2024.
All research outputs
#52,641
of 25,728,350 outputs
Outputs from Oecologia
#4
of 4,518 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,112
of 325,476 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oecologia
#1
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,350 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,518 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 325,476 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.