↓ Skip to main content

Different Growth Promoting Effects of Endophytic Bacteria on Invasive and Native Clonal Plants

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Plant Science, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Different Growth Promoting Effects of Endophytic Bacteria on Invasive and Native Clonal Plants
Published in
Frontiers in Plant Science, May 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpls.2016.00706
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zhi-Cong Dai, Wei Fu, Ling-Yun Wan, Hong-Hong Cai, Ning Wang, Shan-Shan Qi, Dao-Lin Du

Abstract

The role of the interactions between endophytes and alien plants has been unclear yet in plant invasion. We used a completely germ-free culture system to quantify the plant growth-promoting (PGP) effects of endophytic bacteria Bacillus sp. on aseptic seedlings of Wedelia trilobata and of its native clonal congener W. chinensis. The endophytic bacteria did not affect the growth of W. chinensis, but they significantly promoted the growth of W. trilobata. With the PGP effects of endophytic bacteria, relative change ratios of the clonal traits and the ramets' growth traits of W. trilobata were significantly greater than those of W. chinensis. Our results indicate that the growth-promoting effects of endophytes may differ between invasive and native clonal plants, and the endophytes of invasive plant may be host-specific to facilitate plant invasion.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 63 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 19%
Student > Bachelor 9 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Researcher 4 6%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 19 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 27 42%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 9%
Environmental Science 3 5%
Chemistry 2 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 22 34%
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 03 June 2016.
All research outputs
#14,263,483
of 22,873,031 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#8,186
of 20,257 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#187,546
of 334,086 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#167
of 519 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,873,031 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 20,257 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 334,086 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 519 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 65% of its contemporaries.