↓ Skip to main content

Impacts of forestry on boreal forests: An ecosystem services perspective

Overview of attention for article published in Ambio, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
78 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
225 Mendeley
Title
Impacts of forestry on boreal forests: An ecosystem services perspective
Published in
Ambio, April 2017
DOI 10.1007/s13280-017-0919-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tähti Pohjanmies, María Triviño, Eric Le Tortorec, Adriano Mazziotta, Tord Snäll, Mikko Mönkkönen

Abstract

Forests are widely recognized as major providers of ecosystem services, including timber, other forest products, recreation, regulation of water, soil and air quality, and climate change mitigation. Extensive tracts of boreal forests are actively managed for timber production, but actions aimed at increasing timber yields also affect other forest functions and services. Here, we present an overview of the environmental impacts of forest management from the perspective of ecosystem services. We show how prevailing forestry practices may have substantial but diverse effects on the various ecosystem services provided by boreal forests. Several aspects of these processes remain poorly known and warrant a greater role in future studies, including the role of community structure. Conflicts among different interests related to boreal forests are most likely to occur, but the concept of ecosystem services may provide a useful framework for identifying and resolving these conflicts.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 225 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Finland 1 <1%
Unknown 224 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 39 17%
Researcher 33 15%
Student > Bachelor 26 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 4%
Other 26 12%
Unknown 71 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 65 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 37 16%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 9 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 8 4%
Social Sciences 5 2%
Other 15 7%
Unknown 86 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 August 2021.
All research outputs
#3,037,609
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Ambio
#582
of 1,954 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,210
of 326,713 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ambio
#4
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,954 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 326,713 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 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 66% of its contemporaries.