↓ Skip to main content

Eukaryal composition and diversity in anaerobic soils influenced by the novel chiral insecticide Paichongding

Overview of attention for article published in AMB Express, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
8 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
Eukaryal composition and diversity in anaerobic soils influenced by the novel chiral insecticide Paichongding
Published in
AMB Express, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13568-018-0590-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xiaolin Zhu, Shaomin Zhou, Jing Guo, Xiyue Zhao, Guanghua Yang, Zhiqiang Cai

Abstract

Paichongding (IPP) is a neonicotinoid chiral insecticide with independent intellectual property in China. IPP application can increase crop yield, and also lead to insecticide residue and pollution in soils, which will affect microbial population and community composition in soils. In this study, four different types of soils were employed to inquire into the impact of IPP on eukaryal community and species-group through pyrosequencing of 18S rRNA gene amplicons. Fungal population differed in different soils at different days after IPP treatment (DAT). Eukaryal community species in CK (control check) groups were more rich than that with Paichongding sprayed at 5 DAT, while eukaryal species in CK soils at 60 DAT was relatively slight. Shannon's H' analysis indicated fungal species in CK soils were also higher at 5 DAT and relative lower at 60 DAT, except in soil C. There are also differences in the phyla and genus levels of the eukaryotic communities in the soil. After IPP application, the relative abundance of Nectriaceae increased 3-4 times in soil C. In soil F, Phaeosphaeriaceae increased to 57.3% at 5 DAT. The genus of Guehomyces, Aspergillus and Alternaria increased from 3.1 to 9.7, 1.1 to 4.6, 1.5 to 6.7% in soil H, respectively.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 8 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 2 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 13%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 13%
Unknown 4 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 2 25%
Social Sciences 1 13%
Unknown 5 63%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 22 April 2018.
All research outputs
#18,294,766
of 23,498,099 outputs
Outputs from AMB Express
#746
of 1,255 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#239,423
of 328,486 outputs
Outputs of similar age from AMB Express
#23
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,498,099 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,255 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 328,486 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 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 51% of its contemporaries.