Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ ZENODOarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
ZENODO
Image . 2018
License: CC BY
Data sources: ZENODO
ZENODO
Image . 2018
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
ZENODO
Image . 2018
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
 View all 2 versions
Claim

Fig. 4 in Genome size of chrysophytes varies with cell size and nutritional mode

appsOther research productkeyboard_double_arrow_right Image 09 May 2018Publisher:Zenodo
Authors: Albach Sabina Marks Jens Boenigk Abstract, Jana L. Olefeld Stephan Majda Dirk C.;

doi: 10.5281/zenodo.13166641 , 10.5281/zenodo.13166642

Fig. 4 in Genome size of chrysophytes varies with cell size and nutritional mode

Abstract

Published as part of Albach Sabina Marks Jens Boenigk Abstract, Jana L. Olefeld Stephan Majda Dirk C., 2018, Genome size of chrysophytes varies with cell size and nutritional mode, pp. 163-173 in Organisms Diversity & Evolution 18 (2) on page 169, DOI: 10.1007/s13127-018-0365-7, http://zenodo.org/record/13166632

Fig. 4 Comparison of genome size within different taxonomic groups. Mixotrophic (blue) and heterotrophic (dark red) chrysophytes rank among the smallest eukaryotic genomes (values obtained from [1] Mohanta and Bae 2015; Egertová and Sochor 2017; [2] Gregory 2017; [3] Bennett 2012; [4] Courties et al. 1994)

Keywords

Biodiversity, Taxonomy

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    		 0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    		 Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    		 Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    		 Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average