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 |
Forest cutting and impacts on carbon in the eastern United States
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Scientific Reports, December 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1038/srep03547 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Decheng Zhou, Shuguang Liu, Jennifer Oeding, Shuqing Zhao |
| Abstract |
Forest cutting is a major anthropogenic disturbance that affects forest carbon (C) storage and fluxes. Yet its characteristics and impacts on C cycling are poorly understood over large areas. Using recent annualized forest inventory data, we estimated cutting-related loss of live biomass in the eastern United States was 168 Tg C yr(-1) from 2002 to 2010 (with C loss per unit forest area of 1.07 Mg ha(-1) yr(-1)), which is equivalent to 70% of the total U.S. forest C sink or 11% of the national annual CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel combustion over the same period. We further revealed that specific cutting-related C loss varied with cutting intensities, forest types, stand ages, and geographic locations. Our results provide new insights to the characteristics of forest harvesting activities in the eastern United States and highlight the significance of partial cutting to regional and national carbon budgets. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 18% |
| United States | 2 | 18% |
| Canada | 2 | 18% |
| Italy | 1 | 9% |
| Australia | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 3 | 27% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 11 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 51 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 35% |
| Researcher | 9 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 10% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 7 | 14% |
| Unknown | 6 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 15 | 29% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 11 | 22% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 7 | 14% |
| Engineering | 2 | 4% |
| Energy | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 12% |
| Unknown | 8 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 03 December 2020.
All research outputs
#1,499,448
of 22,736,112 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#14,133
of 122,569 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,326
of 306,126 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#81
of 659 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,736,112 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 122,569 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. 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 306,126 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 659 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.