↓ Skip to main content

Ancient Deforestation Revisited

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of the History of Biology, July 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
Title
Ancient Deforestation Revisited
Published in
Journal of the History of Biology, July 2010
DOI 10.1007/s10739-010-9247-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

J. Donald Hughes

Abstract

The image of the classical Mediterranean environment of the Greeks and Romans had a formative influence on the art, literature, and historical perception of modern Europe and America. How closely does is this image congruent with the ancient environment as it in reality existed? In particular, how forested was the ancient Mediterranean world, was there deforestation, and if so, what were its effects? The consensus of historians, geographers, and other scholars from the mid-nineteenth century through the first three quarters of the twentieth century was that human activities had depleted the forests to a major extent and caused severe erosion. My research confirmed this general picture. Since then, revisionist historians have questioned these conclusions, maintaining instead that little environmental damage was done to forests and soils in ancient Greco-Roman times. In a reconsideration of the question, this paper looks at recent scientific work providing proxy evidence for the condition of forests at various times in ancient history. I look at three scientific methodologies, namely anthracology, palynology, and computer modeling. Each of these avenues of research offers support for the concept of forest change, both in abundance and species composition, and episodes of deforestation and erosion, and confirms my earlier work.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Unknown 77 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 16%
Student > Master 10 13%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 16 20%
Unknown 12 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 20 25%
Arts and Humanities 18 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 15%
Social Sciences 7 9%
Neuroscience 2 3%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 14 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 24 March 2022.
All research outputs
#7,444,902
of 23,408,972 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the History of Biology
#173
of 491 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,350
of 95,530 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the History of Biology
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,408,972 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 491 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 95,530 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.