↓ Skip to main content

Leaf litter decomposition in Torna stream before and after a red mud disaster

Overview of attention for article published in Acta Biologica Hungarica, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#30 of 127)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
11 Mendeley
Title
Leaf litter decomposition in Torna stream before and after a red mud disaster
Published in
Acta Biologica Hungarica, March 2014
DOI 10.1556/abiol.65.2014.1.9
Pubmed ID
Authors

T. Kucserka, Kata Karádi-Kovács, M. Vass, G. Selmeczy, Katalin Hubai, Viktória Üveges, I. Kacsala, N. Törő, Judit Padisák

Abstract

The aim of the study was to estimate the breakdown of the allochthonous litter in an artificial stream running in an agricultural area and compare it with the same values following a toxic mud spill into the same stream. Litter bags were filled with three types of leaves (Quercus robur, Populus tremula and Salix alba) and placed to the bottom of the river. Ergosterol was used to detect fungal biomass. We supposed the absence of fungi and the retardation of leaf litter decomposition. Only pH and conductivity increased significantly. Leaf mass loss after the catastrophe was much slower than in 2009 and the decay curves did not follow the exponential decay model. Prior to the catastrophe, leaf mass loss was fast in Torna, compared to other streams in the area. The reason is that the stream is modified, the bed is trapezoid and covered with concrete stones. Fungal biomass was lower, than in the pre-disaster experiment, because fungi did not have enough leaves to sporulate. Leaf mass loss followed the exponential decay curve before the disaster, but after that it was possible only after a non-change period.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 2 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 18%
Student > Bachelor 2 18%
Professor 1 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 9%
Other 2 18%
Unknown 1 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 5 45%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 27%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 9%
Unknown 2 18%

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 13 September 2014.
All research outputs
#7,586,405
of 12,140,823 outputs
Outputs from Acta Biologica Hungarica
#30
of 127 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,429
of 213,026 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Acta Biologica Hungarica
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,140,823 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 127 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 213,026 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them