↓ Skip to main content

Protocol: optimising hydroponic growth systems for nutritional and physiological analysis of Arabidopsis thaliana and other plants

Overview of attention for article published in Plant Methods, February 2013
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 (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
15 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
142 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
452 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Protocol: optimising hydroponic growth systems for nutritional and physiological analysis of Arabidopsis thaliana and other plants
Published in
Plant Methods, February 2013
DOI 10.1186/1746-4811-9-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Simon J Conn, Bradleigh Hocking, Maclin Dayod, Bo Xu, Asmini Athman, Sam Henderson, Lucy Aukett, Vanessa Conn, Monique K Shearer, Sigfredo Fuentes, Stephen D Tyerman, Matthew Gilliham

Abstract

Hydroponic growth systems are a convenient platform for studying whole plant physiology. However, we found through trialling systems as they are described in the literature that our experiments were frequently confounded by factors that affected plant growth, including algal contamination and hypoxia. We also found the way in which the plants were grown made them poorly amenable to a number of common physiological assays.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 452 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 1%
Germany 2 <1%
Argentina 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Turkey 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Other 4 <1%
Unknown 432 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 89 20%
Student > Master 80 18%
Student > Bachelor 64 14%
Researcher 59 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 30 7%
Other 65 14%
Unknown 65 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 260 58%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 54 12%
Engineering 17 4%
Environmental Science 15 3%
Computer Science 6 1%
Other 26 6%
Unknown 74 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 14 December 2020.
All research outputs
#1,428,697
of 21,926,202 outputs
Outputs from Plant Methods
#56
of 1,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,552
of 281,939 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Plant Methods
#3
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,926,202 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,043 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 281,939 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.