↓ Skip to main content

Temporal variations in methane emissions from emergent aquatic macrophytes in two boreonemoral lakes

Overview of attention for article published in AoB Plants, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#34 of 511)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
11 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 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.
Title
Temporal variations in methane emissions from emergent aquatic macrophytes in two boreonemoral lakes
Published in
AoB Plants, July 2017
DOI 10.1093/aobpla/plx029
Pubmed ID
Authors

Per Milberg, Lina Törnqvist, Lars M. Westerberg, David Bastviken

Abstract

Methane (CH4) emissions via emergent aquatic macrophytes can contribute substantially to the global CH4 balance. We addressed temporal variability in CH4 flux by using the static chamber approach to quantify fluxes from plots dominated by two species considered to differ in flux transport mechanisms (Phragmites australis, Carex rostrata). Temporal variability in daily mean emissions from early June to early October was substantial. The variable that best explained this variation was air temperature. Regular and consistent diel changes were absent and therefore less relevant to include when estimating or modelling CH4 emissions. Methane emissions per m(2) from nearby plots were similar for Phragmites australis and Carex rostrata indicating that CH4 production in the system influenced emissions more than the species identity. This study indicates that previously observed diel patterns and species-effects on emissions require further evaluation to support improved local and regional CH4 flux assessments.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 tweeters 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 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 33%
Student > Master 4 27%
Professor 1 7%
Lecturer 1 7%
Student > Postgraduate 1 7%
Other 3 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 8 53%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 20%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 3 20%
Unspecified 1 7%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 18 December 2017.
All research outputs
#692,761
of 12,312,517 outputs
Outputs from AoB Plants
#34
of 511 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,734
of 265,372 outputs
Outputs of similar age from AoB Plants
#2
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,312,517 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 511 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 265,372 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 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.