↓ Skip to main content

Large difference in carbon emission – burial balances between boreal and arctic lakes

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, September 2015
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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
Title
Large difference in carbon emission – burial balances between boreal and arctic lakes
Published in
Scientific Reports, September 2015
DOI 10.1038/srep14248
Pubmed ID
Authors

E. J. Lundin, J. Klaminder, D. Bastviken, C. Olid, S. V. Hansson, J. Karlsson

Abstract

Lakes play an important role in the global carbon (C) cycle by burying C in sediments and emitting CO2 and CH4 to the atmosphere. The strengths and control of these fundamentally different pathways are therefore of interest when assessing the continental C balance and its response to environmental change. In this study, based on new high-resolution estimates in combination with literature data, we show that annual emission:burial ratios are generally ten times higher in boreal compared to subarctic - arctic lakes. These results suggest major differences in lake C cycling between biomes, as lakes in warmer boreal regions emit more and store relatively less C than lakes in colder arctic regions. Such effects are of major importance for understanding climatic feedbacks on the continental C sink - source function at high latitudes. If predictions of global warming and northward expansion of the boreal biome are correct, it is likely that increasing C emissions from high latitude lakes will partly counteract the presumed increasing terrestrial C sink capacity at high latitudes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 4%
Unknown 51 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 30%
Researcher 13 25%
Student > Master 9 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 6%
Other 7 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 23 43%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 14 26%
Unspecified 8 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 2 4%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 30 November 2015.
All research outputs
#628,509
of 11,227,973 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#5,958
of 48,019 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,010
of 239,201 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#243
of 1,908 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,227,973 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 48,019 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 239,201 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,908 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.