| Title |
Studies of life history of Gagea graeca (Liliaceae) based on morphological and molecular methods
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Botanical Studies, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40529-017-0194-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Martin Schnittler, Akmaral Nursafina, Angela Peterson, Jens Peterson, Carl Barnick, Anja Klahr |
| Abstract |
We studied the life history of Gagea graeca (L.) A. Terracc. (sect. Anthericoides) by field surveys on the Greek island of Crete, including quantitative analyses of 405 individuals, estimation of resource allocation by measuring the nitrogen content of different plant organs, assessing seed set and recording genetic diversity via amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) analyses. In contrast to most species of the genus G. graeca seems to be a short-lived perennial, developing several characters that are rather typical for annual plants. Although seed set varies largely, flowering plants produce many (68 ± 79) small, flattened seeds (mean weight 73 ± 22 µg) in comparison to a single bulbil. If measured as nitrogen content of the respective plant parts, investment in seeds (25%) is much higher than that in bulbils (4%). In addition, the threshold for flower formation (expressed as bulb size where 50% of the plants form the respective structure) is with 2.17 ± 0.05 mm lower than that for bulbils with 2.80 ± 0.16 mm. This is in accordance with AFLP analyses revealing predominantly sexual reproduction (only 9.1% of 110 investigated plants belonged to clones). In the genus Gagea early, predominantly sexual reproduction seems to be characteristic for species from arid habitats, coupled with a low proportion of clonal plants. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 10 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Lecturer | 2 | 20% |
| Researcher | 2 | 20% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 10% |
| Other | 1 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 10% |
| Other | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 2 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 70% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 1 | 10% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 October 2017.
All research outputs
#19,951,180
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Botanical Studies
#110
of 188 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#241,990
of 331,602 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Botanical Studies
#4
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 331,602 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 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 63% of its contemporaries.