| Title |
Difference in cesium accumulation among rice cultivars grown in the paddy field in Fukushima Prefecture in 2011 and 2012
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Plant Research, December 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10265-013-0616-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yoshihiro Ohmori, Yayoi Inui, Masataka Kajikawa, Atsumi Nakata, Naoyuki Sotta, Koji Kasai, Shimpei Uraguchi, Nobuhiro Tanaka, Sho Nishida, Takahiro Hasegawa, Takuya Sakamoto, Yuko Kawara, Kayoko Aizawa, Haruka Fujita, Ke Li, Naoya Sawaki, Koshiro Oda, Ryuichiro Futagoishi, Takahiro Tsusaka, Satomi Takahashi, Junpei Takano, Shinji Wakuta, Akira Yoshinari, Masataka Uehara, Shigeki Takada, Hayato Nagano, Kyoko Miwa, Izumi Aibara, Takuya Ojima, Kaoru Ebana, Satoru Ishikawa, Kuni Sueyoshi, Hiroshi Hasegawa, Tetsuro Mimura, Mari Mimura, Natsuko I. Kobayashi, Jun Furukawa, Daisuke Kobayashi, Toshiyasu Okouchi, Keitaro Tanoi, Toru Fujiwara |
| Abstract |
After the accident of the Fukushima 1 Nuclear Power Plant in March 2011, radioactive cesium was released and paddy fields in a wide area including Fukushima Prefecture were contaminated. To estimate the levels of radioactive Cs accumulation in rice produced in Fukushima, it is crucial to obtain the actual data of Cs accumulation levels in rice plants grown in the actual paddy field in Fukushima City. We herein conducted a two-year survey in 2011 and 2012 of radioactive and non-radioactive Cs accumulation in rice using a number of rice cultivars grown in the paddy field in Fukushima City. Our study demonstrated a substantial variation in Cs accumulation levels among the cultivars of rice. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 2 | 25% |
| Unknown | 6 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 3% |
| Italy | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 37 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 21% |
| Researcher | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 13% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 10% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Unknown | 6 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 17 | 44% |
| Environmental Science | 9 | 23% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 8 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 December 2013.
All research outputs
#5,691,427
of 22,738,543 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Plant Research
#109
of 825 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,480
of 307,707 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Plant Research
#4
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,738,543 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 825 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 307,707 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 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 68% of its contemporaries.