↓ Skip to main content

Tropical secondary forests regenerating after shifting cultivation in the Philippines uplands are important carbon sinks

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, March 2016
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 (79th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
9 X users

Readers on

mendeley
227 Mendeley
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.
Article details
Title
Tropical secondary forests regenerating after shifting cultivation in the Philippines uplands are important carbon sinks
Published in
Scientific Reports, March 2016
DOI 10.1038/srep22483
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

In the tropics, shifting cultivation has long been attributed to large scale forest degradation, and remains a major source of uncertainty in forest carbon accounting. In the Philippines, shifting cultivation, locally known as kaingin, is a major land-use in upland areas. We measured the distribution and recovery of aboveground biomass carbon along a fallow gradient in post-kaingin secondary forests in an upland area in the Philippines. We found significantly higher carbon in the aboveground total biomass and living woody biomass in old-growth forest, while coarse dead wood biomass carbon was higher in the new fallow sites. For young through to the oldest fallow secondary forests, there was a progressive recovery of biomass carbon evident. Multivariate analysis indicates patch size as an influential factor in explaining the variation in biomass carbon recovery in secondary forests after shifting cultivation. Our study indicates secondary forests after shifting cultivation are substantial carbon sinks and that this capacity to store carbon increases with abandonment age. Large trees contribute most to aboveground biomass. A better understanding of the relative contribution of different biomass sources in aboveground total forest biomass, however, is necessary to fully capture the value of such landscapes from forest management, restoration and conservation perspectives.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 227 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Panama 1 <1%
Unknown 225 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 45 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 41 18%
Researcher 30 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 7%
Student > Bachelor 14 6%
Other 28 12%
Unknown 53 23%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 72 32%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 67 30%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 9 4%
Social Sciences 3 1%
Engineering 3 1%
Other 7 3%
Unknown 66 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 January 2022.
All research outputs
#6,063,074
of 34,350,842 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#46,730
of 183,580 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,874
of 338,088 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#1,100
of 3,793 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,350,842 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 183,580 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 338,088 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,793 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 70% of its contemporaries.