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 effects of leaf litter nutrient pulses on Alliaria petiolata performance
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PeerJ, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.7717/peerj.1166 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Robert W. Heckman, David E. Carr |
| Abstract |
Nutrient pulses can facilitate species establishment and spread in new habitats, particularly when one species more effectively uses that nutrient pulse. Biological differences in nutrient acquisition between native and exotic species may facilitate invasions into a variety of habitats including deciduous forest understories. Alliaria petiolata (Bieb.) Cavara & Grande is an important invader of deciduous forest understories throughout much of North America. These understory communities contain many species which perform the majority of their growth and reproduction before canopy closure in spring. Because A. petiolata is a wintergreen biennial that can be active during autumn and winter, it may utilize nutrients released from decaying leaf litter before its competitors. To investigate this we manipulated the timing of leaf litter addition (fall or spring) and experimentally simulated the nutrient pulse from decaying leaves using artificial fertilizer. To determine whether A. petiolata affected the abundance of understory competitors, we also removed A. petiolata from one treatment. A. petiolata that received early nutrients exhibited greater growth. Treatments receiving fall leaf litter or artificial nutrients had greater A. petiolata adult biomass than plots receiving spring nutrient additions (leaf litter or artificial nutrients). However, fall leaf litter addition had no effect on the richness of competitor species. Thus, wintergreen phenology may contribute to the spread of A. petiolata through deciduous forest understories, but may not explain community-level impacts of A. petiolata in deciduous forests. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 24 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 29% |
| Unspecified | 5 | 21% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 38% |
| Environmental Science | 6 | 25% |
| Unspecified | 5 | 21% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 1 | 4% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 07 September 2015.
All research outputs
#14,235,639
of 22,824,164 outputs
Outputs from PeerJ
#8,121
of 13,259 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#137,701
of 266,186 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PeerJ
#173
of 225 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,824,164 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,259 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.4. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 266,186 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 225 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.