↓ 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 2,932)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
154 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 174 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 154 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Estonia 1 <1%
Luxembourg 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Unknown 146 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 21%
Researcher 27 18%
Student > Bachelor 23 15%
Unspecified 21 14%
Student > Master 20 13%
Other 31 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 68 44%
Unspecified 29 19%
Environmental Science 18 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 15 10%
Arts and Humanities 5 3%
Other 19 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 327. 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 03 September 2019.
All research outputs
#36,083
of 13,644,080 outputs
Outputs from Oecologia
#4
of 2,932 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,826
of 262,584 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oecologia
#1
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,644,080 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 2,932 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. 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 262,584 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 58 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 98% of its contemporaries.