↓ Skip to main content

LivestockPlus: Forages, sustainable intensification, and food security in the tropics

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
158 Mendeley
Title
LivestockPlus: Forages, sustainable intensification, and food security in the tropics
Published in
Ambio, June 2015
DOI 10.1007/s13280-015-0676-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas K. Rudel, Birthe Paul, Douglas White, I. M. Rao, Rein Van Der Hoek, Aracely Castro, Maryline Boval, Amy Lerner, Laura Schneider, Michael Peters

Abstract

The increased use of grain-based feed for livestock during the last two decades has contributed, along with other factors, to a rise in grain prices that has reduced human food security. This circumstance argues for feeding more forages to livestock, particularly in the tropics where many livestock are reared on small farms. Efforts to accomplish this end, referred to as the 'LivestockPlus' approach, intensify in sustainable ways the management of grasses, shrubs, trees, and animals. By decoupling the human food and livestock feed systems, these efforts would increase the resilience of the global food system. Effective LivestockPlus approaches take one of two forms: (1) simple improvements such as new forage varieties and animal management practices that spread from farmer to farmer by word of mouth, or (2) complex sets of new practices that integrate forage production more closely into farms' other agricultural activities and agro-ecologies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 158 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 154 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 20%
Researcher 23 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 15%
Professor 9 6%
Student > Bachelor 8 5%
Other 28 18%
Unknown 35 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 58 37%
Environmental Science 19 12%
Social Sciences 10 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 4%
Engineering 5 3%
Other 18 11%
Unknown 42 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 01 April 2019.
All research outputs
#1,091,673
of 22,815,414 outputs
Outputs from Ambio
#179
of 1,627 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,511
of 263,145 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ambio
#5
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,815,414 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% 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 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 263,145 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.