↓ Skip to main content

Cultivated microalgae spills: hard to predict/easier to mitigate risks

Overview of attention for article published in Trends in Biotechnology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 tweeter

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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.
Title
Cultivated microalgae spills: hard to predict/easier to mitigate risks
Published in
Trends in Biotechnology, January 2013
DOI 10.1016/j.tibtech.2013.11.003
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jonathan Gressel, Cécile J.B. van der Vlugt, Hans E.N. Bergmans, Gressel J, van der Vlugt CJ, Bergmans HE

Abstract

Cultivating algae on a large scale will inevitably lead to spills into natural ecosystems. Most risk analyses have dealt only with transgenic algae, without considering the risks of cultivating the corresponding non-transgenic wild type species. This is despite the long-studied 'paradox of the plankton', which describes the unsuitability of laboratory experimentation or modeling to predict the outcome of introducing non-native algae into a new ecosystem. Risk analyses of transgenic strains of native algae can be based on whether they are more fit or less fit than their wild type, but these are not possible with non-native species. Risks from spills can be minimized by mutagenically or transgenically deleting genes that are unnecessary in culture but obligatory in nature.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 6%
India 1 3%
Italy 1 3%
Japan 1 3%
United States 1 3%
New Zealand 1 3%
Unknown 26 79%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 42%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 27%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 6%
Other 4 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 42%
Engineering 5 15%
Environmental Science 4 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 9%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Other 6 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 April 2014.
All research outputs
#536,774
of 4,507,509 outputs
Outputs from Trends in Biotechnology
#82
of 588 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,134
of 121,528 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trends in Biotechnology
#4
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,507,509 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 588 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 121,528 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.