↓ Skip to main content

Comment on "Worldwide evidence of a unimodal relationship between productivity and plant species richness"

Overview of attention for article published in Science, January 2016
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 (87th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
7 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
5 Mendeley
Title
Comment on "Worldwide evidence of a unimodal relationship between productivity and plant species richness"
Published in
Science, January 2016
DOI 10.1126/science.aad6236
Pubmed ID
Authors

A. T. Tredennick, P. B. Adler, J. B. Grace, W. S. Harpole, E. T. Borer, E. W. Seabloom, T. M. Anderson, J. D. Bakker, L. A. Biederman, C. S. Brown, Y. M. Buckley, C. Chu, S. L. Collins, M. J. Crawley, P. A. Fay, J. Firn, D. S. Gruner, N. Hagenah, Y. Hautier, A. Hector, H. Hillebrand, K. Kirkman, J. M. H. Knops, R. Laungani, E. M. Lind, A. S. MacDougall, R. L. McCulley, C. E. Mitchell, J. L. Moore, J. W. Morgan, J. L. Orrock, P. L. Peri, S. M. Prober, A. C. Risch, M. Schutz, K. L. Speziale, R. J. Standish, L. L. Sullivan, G. M. Wardle, R. J. Williams, L. H. Yang

Abstract

Fraser et al. (Reports, 17 July 2015, p. 302) report a unimodal relationship between productivity and species richness at regional and global scales, which they contrast with the results of Adler et al. (Reports, 23 September 2011, p. 1750). However, both data sets, when analyzed correctly, show clearly and consistently that productivity is a poor predictor of local species richness.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 5 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 5 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 2 40%
Researcher 1 20%
Unknown 2 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 2 40%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 20%
Unknown 2 40%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 September 2016.
All research outputs
#1,175,737
of 12,358,644 outputs
Outputs from Science
#20,987
of 57,557 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,326
of 335,243 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science
#594
of 1,007 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,358,644 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 57,557 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 335,243 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,007 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.