↓ Skip to main content

A Systematic Review on the Contributions of Edible Plant and Animal Biodiversity to Human Diets

Overview of attention for article published in EcoHealth, September 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
174 Mendeley
Title
A Systematic Review on the Contributions of Edible Plant and Animal Biodiversity to Human Diets
Published in
EcoHealth, September 2011
DOI 10.1007/s10393-011-0700-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniela Penafiel, Carl Lachat, Ramon Espinel, Patrick Van Damme, Patrick Kolsteren

Abstract

The sustainable use of natural and agricultural biodiversity in the diet can be instrumental to preserve existing food biodiversity, address malnutrition, and mitigate adverse effects of dietary changes worldwide. This systematic review of literature summarizes the current evidence on the contribution of plant and animal biodiversity to human diets in terms of energy intake, micronutrient intake, and dietary diversification. Peer-reviewed studies were searched in ten databases using pre-defined search terms. Only original studies assessing food biodiversity and dietary intake were included, resulting in a total of 34 studies. 7, 14, and 17 studies reported information in relation to energy intake, micronutrient intake, and dietary diversification, respectively. In general, locally available foods were found to be important sources of energy, micronutrients, and dietary diversification in the diet of particularly rural and forest communities of highly biodiverse ecosystems. The current evidence shows local food biodiversity as important contributor of nutritious diets. Findings are, however, limited to populations living in highly biodiverse areas. Research on the contribution of biodiversity in diets of industrialized and urban settings needs more attention. Instruments are needed that would more appropriately measure the dietary contribution of local biodiversity.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 174 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 <1%
Philippines 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 170 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 39 22%
Researcher 28 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 15%
Other 15 9%
Student > Bachelor 10 6%
Other 28 16%
Unknown 28 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 56 32%
Social Sciences 27 16%
Environmental Science 26 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 4%
Other 17 10%
Unknown 33 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 04 June 2015.
All research outputs
#7,409,093
of 22,653,392 outputs
Outputs from EcoHealth
#368
of 706 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,519
of 130,603 outputs
Outputs of similar age from EcoHealth
#4
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,653,392 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 706 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 130,603 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.