↓ Skip to main content

Biodiverse Planting for Carbon and Biodiversity on Indigenous Land

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS ONE, March 2014
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 (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 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
Biodiverse Planting for Carbon and Biodiversity on Indigenous Land
Published in
PLoS ONE, March 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0091281
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna R. Renwick, Catherine J. Robinson, Tara G. Martin, Tracey May, Phil Polglase, Hugh P. Possingham, Josie Carwardine

Abstract

Carbon offset mechanisms have been established to mitigate climate change through changes in land management. Regulatory frameworks enable landowners and managers to generate saleable carbon credits on domestic and international markets. Identifying and managing the associated co-benefits and dis-benefits involved in the adoption of carbon offset projects is important for the projects to contribute to the broader goal of sustainable development and the provision of benefits to the local communities. So far it has been unclear how Indigenous communities can benefit from such initiatives. We provide a spatial analysis of the carbon and biodiversity potential of one offset method, planting biodiverse native vegetation, on Indigenous land across Australia. We discover significant potential for opportunities for Indigenous communities to achieve carbon sequestration and biodiversity goals through biodiverse plantings, largely in southern and eastern Australia, but the economic feasibility of these projects depend on carbon market assumptions. Our national scale cost-effectiveness analysis is critical to enable Indigenous communities to maximise the benefits available to them through participation in carbon offset schemes.

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 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 56 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 21%
Student > Master 10 17%
Other 8 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 8 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 27 47%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 29%
Unspecified 5 9%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 5 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 26 May 2014.
All research outputs
#1,318,984
of 12,091,627 outputs
Outputs from PLoS ONE
#22,908
of 133,030 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,457
of 197,843 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS ONE
#844
of 4,653 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,091,627 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 133,030 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 197,843 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,653 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.