↓ Skip to main content

Diversity and ecological adaptations in Palaeogene lichens

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
19 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
Title
Diversity and ecological adaptations in Palaeogene lichens
Published in
Nature Plants, April 2017
DOI 10.1038/nplants.2017.49
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ulla Kaasalainen, Alexander R. Schmidt, Jouko Rikkinen

Abstract

Lichens are highly specialized symbioses between heterotrophic fungi and photoautotrophic green algae or cyanobacteria. The mycobionts of many lichens produce morphologically complex thalli to house their photobionts. Lichens play important roles in ecosystems and have been used as indicators of environmental change. Here we report the finding of 152 new fossil lichens from European Palaeogene amber, and hence increase the total number of known fossil lichens from 15 to 167. Most of the fossils represent extant lineages of the Lecanoromycetes, an almost exclusively lichen-symbiotic class of Ascomycota. The fossil lichens show a wide diversity of morphological adaptations that attached epiphytic thalli to their substrates, helped to combine external water storage with effective gas exchange and facilitated the simultaneous reproduction and dispersal of both partners in symbiosis. The fossil thallus morphologies suggest that the climate of European Palaeogene amber forests was relatively humid and most likely temperate.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 2%
France 1 2%
Unknown 43 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 20%
Researcher 8 18%
Student > Bachelor 7 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Student > Master 3 7%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 12 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 24%
Environmental Science 6 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 9%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 3 7%
Engineering 2 4%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 16 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 65. 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 19 April 2021.
All research outputs
#660,217
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Nature Plants
#391
of 2,042 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,595
of 323,377 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Plants
#12
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,042 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 50.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 323,377 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.