↓ Skip to main content

From leaf and branch into a flower: Magnolia tells the story

Overview of attention for article published in Botanical Studies, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
Title
From leaf and branch into a flower: Magnolia tells the story
Published in
Botanical Studies, March 2014
DOI 10.1186/1999-3110-55-28
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wen-Zhe Liu, Khidir Hilu, Ya-Ling Wang

Abstract

In the classical doctrines, Magnolia was frequently considered the archetype among flowering plants, and its conduplicate carpel with marginal placentation was assumed to be derived from a leaf-like organ bearing ovules along its margins. Although the robustness of this concept has been seriously questioned by advances in botanical research, especially the emergence of Magnolia deeper in the angiosperm tree of life in molecular systematics, it remains the most-taught interpretation for the origin of carpels. To test the validity of this classical doctrine, we performed comparative anatomical analyses of the vascular bundles in the flowers of Magnolia using fine (8-μm) paraffin -sections. We document the presence of two independent vascular systems in the carpels: the collateral bundles of the dorsal and ventral veins arising from the stelar bundle, and the amphicribral ovular bundles arising from the cortical bundles. This observation in conjunction with data from other fields concurrently suggests that the ovary wall is equivalent to a foliar organ whereas the placenta represents an ovule-bearing shoot. Our observation on the former model plant, Magnolia, nullifies the classical doctrine of carpel evolution and supports the Unifying Theory. This conclusion prompts a reconsideration of the concept of angiosperm flower evolution.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 13%
Researcher 3 13%
Student > Postgraduate 2 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Other 5 22%
Unknown 5 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 61%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Unspecified 1 4%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 4%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 22%
Attention Score in Context

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 07 March 2014.
All research outputs
#16,722,190
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Botanical Studies
#81
of 188 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#137,395
of 236,354 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Botanical Studies
#5
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 188 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 236,354 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.