↓ Skip to main content

Climate and soil properties limit the positive effects of land use reversion on carbon storage in Eastern Australia

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
Title
Climate and soil properties limit the positive effects of land use reversion on carbon storage in Eastern Australia
Published in
Scientific Reports, December 2015
DOI 10.1038/srep17866
Pubmed ID
Authors

S.M.F. Rabbi, Matthew Tighe, Manuel Delgado-Baquerizo, Annette Cowie, Fiona Robertson, Ram Dalal, Kathryn Page, Doug Crawford, Brian R. Wilson, Graeme Schwenke, Malem Mcleod, Warwick Badgery, Yash P. Dang, Mike Bell, Garry O’Leary, De Li Liu, Jeff Baldock

Abstract

Australia's "Direct Action" climate change policy relies on purchasing greenhouse gas abatement from projects undertaking approved abatement activities. Management of soil organic carbon (SOC) in agricultural soils is an approved activity, based on the expectation that land use change can deliver significant changes in SOC. However, there are concerns that climate, topography and soil texture will limit changes in SOC stocks. This work analyses data from 1482 sites surveyed across the major agricultural regions of Eastern Australia to determine the relative importance of land use vs. other drivers of SOC. Variation in land use explained only 1.4% of the total variation in SOC, with aridity and soil texture the main regulators of SOC stock under different land uses. Results suggest the greatest potential for increasing SOC stocks in Eastern Australian agricultural regions lies in converting from cropping to pasture on heavy textured soils in the humid regions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 22%
Student > Master 6 15%
Unspecified 5 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 8 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 56%
Unspecified 8 20%
Environmental Science 6 15%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 5%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Other 0 0%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 15 February 2016.
All research outputs
#2,111,292
of 8,271,391 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#12,643
of 35,597 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,324
of 301,000 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#862
of 2,397 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,271,391 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 60th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 35,597 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 301,000 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2,397 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 62% of its contemporaries.