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 |
The Macroecology of Airborne Pollen in Australian and New Zealand Urban Areas
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, May 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0097925 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Simon G. Haberle, David M. J. S. Bowman, Rewi M. Newnham, Fay H. Johnston, Paul J. Beggs, Jeroen Buters, Bradley Campbell, Bircan Erbas, Ian Godwin, Brett J. Green, Alfredo Huete, Alison K. Jaggard, Danielle Medek, Frank Murray, Ed Newbigin, Michel Thibaudon, Don Vicendese, Grant J. Williamson, Janet M. Davies |
| Abstract |
The composition and relative abundance of airborne pollen in urban areas of Australia and New Zealand are strongly influenced by geographical location, climate and land use. There is mounting evidence that the diversity and quality of airborne pollen is substantially modified by climate change and land-use yet there are insufficient data to project the future nature of these changes. Our study highlights the need for long-term aerobiological monitoring in Australian and New Zealand urban areas in a systematic, standardised, and sustained way, and provides a framework for targeting the most clinically significant taxa in terms of abundance, allergenic effects and public health burden. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 77 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 18% |
| Researcher | 10 | 13% |
| Other | 9 | 12% |
| Professor | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 14 | 18% |
| Unknown | 20 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 19 | 24% |
| Environmental Science | 15 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 6% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 10 | 13% |
| Unknown | 20 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 23 May 2020.
All research outputs
#1,829,964
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#23,219
of 202,026 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,935
of 228,277 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#529
of 4,522 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 202,026 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 228,277 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,522 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.