↓ Skip to main content

Combining Costs and Benefits of Animal Activities to Assess Net Yield Outcomes in Apple Orchards

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 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
Combining Costs and Benefits of Animal Activities to Assess Net Yield Outcomes in Apple Orchards
Published in
PLOS ONE, July 2016
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0158618
Pubmed ID
Authors

Manu E. Saunders, Gary W. Luck

Abstract

Diverse animal communities influence ecosystem function in agroecosystems through positive and negative plant-animal interactions. Yet, past research has largely failed to examine multiple interactions that can have opposing impacts on agricultural production in a given context. We collected data on arthropod communities and yield quality and quantity parameters (fruit set, yield loss and net outcomes) in three major apple-growing regions in south-eastern Australia. We quantified the net yield outcome (accounting for positive and negative interactions) of multiple animal activities (pollination, fruit damage, biological control) across the entire growing season on netted branches, which excluded vertebrate predators of arthropods, and open branches. Net outcome was calculated as the number of undamaged fruit at harvest as a proportion of the number of blossoms (i.e., potential fruit yield). Vertebrate exclusion resulted in lower levels of fruit set and higher levels of arthropod damage to apples, but did not affect net outcomes. Yield quality and quantity parameters (fruit set, yield loss, net outcomes) were not directly associated with arthropod functional groups. Model variance and significant differences between the ratio of pest to beneficial arthropods between regions indicated that complex relationships between environmental factors and multiple animal interactions have a combined effect on yield. Our results show that focusing on a single crop stage, species group or ecosystem function/service can overlook important complexity in ecological processes within the system. Accounting for this complexity and quantifying the net outcome of ecological interactions within the system, is more informative for research and management of biodiversity and ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 28%
Researcher 11 21%
Student > Master 7 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Student > Postgraduate 2 4%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 10 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 40%
Environmental Science 14 26%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 12 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 13 September 2017.
All research outputs
#5,864,189
of 24,246,771 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#76,946
of 208,607 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,456
of 361,581 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,233
of 4,432 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,246,771 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 208,607 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 361,581 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,432 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 71% of its contemporaries.