↓ Skip to main content

Nitrogen footprints: Regional realities and options to reduce nitrogen loss to the environment

Overview of attention for article published in Ambio, September 2016
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)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
106 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
234 Mendeley
Title
Nitrogen footprints: Regional realities and options to reduce nitrogen loss to the environment
Published in
Ambio, September 2016
DOI 10.1007/s13280-016-0815-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hideaki Shibata, James N. Galloway, Allison M. Leach, Lia R. Cattaneo, Laura Cattell Noll, Jan Willem Erisman, Baojing Gu, Xia Liang, Kentaro Hayashi, Lin Ma, Tommy Dalgaard, Morten Graversgaard, Deli Chen, Keisuke Nansai, Junko Shindo, Kazuyo Matsubae, Azusa Oita, Ming-Chien Su, Shin-Ichiro Mishima, Albert Bleeker

Abstract

Nitrogen (N) management presents a sustainability dilemma: N is strongly linked to energy and food production, but excess reactive N causes environmental pollution. The N footprint is an indicator that quantifies reactive N losses to the environment from consumption and production of food and the use of energy. The average per capita N footprint (calculated using the N-Calculator methodology) of ten countries varies from 15 to 47 kg N capita(-1) year(-1). The major cause of the difference is the protein consumption rates and food production N losses. The food sector dominates all countries' N footprints. Global connections via trade significantly affect the N footprint in countries that rely on imported foods and feeds. The authors present N footprint reduction strategies (e.g., improve N use efficiency, increase N recycling, reduce food waste, shift dietary choices) and identify knowledge gaps (e.g., the N footprint from nonfood goods and soil N process).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 234 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 3 1%
Unknown 231 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 43 18%
Researcher 43 18%
Student > Master 35 15%
Student > Bachelor 20 9%
Professor 12 5%
Other 27 12%
Unknown 54 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 57 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 48 21%
Engineering 17 7%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 13 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 3%
Other 28 12%
Unknown 65 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 56. 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 10 August 2018.
All research outputs
#649,843
of 22,889,074 outputs
Outputs from Ambio
#78
of 1,629 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,867
of 334,696 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ambio
#2
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,889,074 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 1,629 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 334,696 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 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.