↓ Skip to main content

Screening risk areas for sediment and phosphorus losses to improve placement of mitigation measures

Overview of attention for article published in Ambio, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 Mendeley
Title
Screening risk areas for sediment and phosphorus losses to improve placement of mitigation measures
Published in
Ambio, June 2015
DOI 10.1007/s13280-015-0680-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ana Villa, Faruk Djodjic, Lars Bergström, Katarina Kyllmar

Abstract

Identification of vulnerable arable areas to phosphorus (P) losses is needed to effectively implement mitigation measures. Indicators for source (soil test P, STP), potential mobilization by erosion (soil dispersion), and transport (unit-stream power length-slope, LS) risks were used to screen the vulnerability to suspended solids (SS) and P losses in two contrasting catchments regarding topography, soil textural distribution, and STP. Soils in the first catchment ranged from loamy sand to clay loam, while clay soils were dominant in the second catchment. Long-term SS and total P losses were higher in the second catchment in spite of significantly lower topsoil STP. A higher proportion of areas in the second catchment were identified with higher risk due to the significantly higher risk of overland flow generation (LS) and a significantly higher mobilization risk in the soil dispersion laboratory tests. A simple screening method was presented to improve the placement of mitigation measures.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 8%
Unknown 11 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 33%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 17%
Professor 1 8%
Student > Bachelor 1 8%
Student > Master 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 2 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 4 33%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 17%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 17%
Engineering 1 8%
Unknown 3 25%
Attention Score in Context

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 28 June 2015.
All research outputs
#5,594,237
of 22,815,414 outputs
Outputs from Ambio
#835
of 1,627 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,095
of 263,249 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ambio
#12
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,815,414 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,627 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 263,249 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 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 52% of its contemporaries.