↓ Skip to main content

Effect of Increasing Salinity on Development of Giant Reed (Arundo donax) from Rhizome and Culms

Overview of attention for article published in Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
9 Mendeley
Title
Effect of Increasing Salinity on Development of Giant Reed (Arundo donax) from Rhizome and Culms
Published in
Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, October 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00128-017-2197-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Graeme Allinson

Abstract

Arundo donax (giant reed) has great potential for bioenergy biomass production in constructed wetlands. Large scale use of A. donax in constructed wetlands will require the use of either established plants sourced from nurseries, or the use of cuttings or rhizomes and stems from mother plants derived from nurseries or wild stands. The results of this study suggest that cuttings and rhizomes are not sensitive to salinity up to an EC ~ 4500 µS cm(- 1). Plants used to establish a constructed wetland should have stems of at least 300 mm length, with well established roots. Moreover, culms will emerge from small pieces of stems with viable nodes regardless of salinity, albeit the fresher the water the less likely salinity will subsequently affect the emerging shoot. From a practical perspective, this suggests that wetlands can be planted with giant reed using horizontally laid stems. Unless using plants pre-stressed to a salinity matching that of the wastewater to be treated, giant reed should be established using reasonable quality water (EC < 1000 µS cm(- 1)) until the plants are of a reasonable size, e.g. > 500 mm in height, after which undiluted wastewater can be used.

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 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 33%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 11%
Researcher 1 11%
Student > Bachelor 1 11%
Unknown 3 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 3 33%
Social Sciences 1 11%
Environmental Science 1 11%
Unknown 4 44%
Attention Score in Context

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 09 March 2018.
All research outputs
#18,922,529
of 24,119,703 outputs
Outputs from Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
#2,738
of 4,112 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#241,210
of 332,285 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
#11
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,119,703 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,112 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 332,285 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 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 67% of its contemporaries.