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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Differences in forest plant functional trait distributions across land‐use and productivity gradients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
American Journal of Botany, July 2013
|
| DOI | 10.3732/ajb.1200461 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Margaret M. Mayfield, John M. Dwyer, Loïc Chalmandrier, Jessie A. Wells, Stephen P. Bonser, Carla P. Catterall, Fabrice DeClerck, Yi Ding, Jennifer M. Fraterrigo, Daniel J. Metcalfe, Cibele Queiroz, Peter A. Vesk, John W. Morgan |
| Abstract |
Plant functional traits are commonly used as proxies for plant responses to environmental challenges, yet few studies have explored how functional trait distributions differ across gradients of land-use change. By comparing trait distributions in intact forests with those across land-use change gradients, we can improve our understanding of the ways land-use change alters the diversity and functioning of plant communities. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 190 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 2% |
| Germany | 2 | 1% |
| Panama | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Argentina | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 178 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 48 | 25% |
| Researcher | 38 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 26 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 7% |
| Other | 35 | 18% |
| Unknown | 13 | 7% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 109 | 57% |
| Environmental Science | 53 | 28% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 3 | 2% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 24 | 13% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 12 February 2016.
All research outputs
#21,921,572
of 24,458,924 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Botany
#4,358
of 4,415 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#176,342
of 199,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Botany
#46
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,458,924 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,415 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 199,006 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.