↓ Skip to main content

Biological Nitrogen Fixation Does Not Replace Nitrogen Losses After Forest Fires in the Southeastern Amazon

Overview of attention for article published in Ecosystems, November 2019
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 (78th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
Title
Biological Nitrogen Fixation Does Not Replace Nitrogen Losses After Forest Fires in the Southeastern Amazon
Published in
Ecosystems, November 2019
DOI 10.1007/s10021-019-00453-y
Authors

Michelle Y. Wong, Christopher Neill, Roxanne Marino, Divino V. Silvério, Paulo M. Brando, Robert W. Howarth

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 23%
Student > Bachelor 6 15%
Researcher 4 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Professor 2 5%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 11 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 16 40%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 10%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 3 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 3%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 13 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 17 February 2020.
All research outputs
#4,292,495
of 25,165,154 outputs
Outputs from Ecosystems
#348
of 1,300 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,399
of 367,913 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ecosystems
#6
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,165,154 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,300 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 367,913 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 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 66% of its contemporaries.