↓ Skip to main content

Comparative homegarden medical ethnobotany of Naxi healers and farmers in Northwestern Yunnan, China

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 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
Comparative homegarden medical ethnobotany of Naxi healers and farmers in Northwestern Yunnan, China
Published in
Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/1746-4269-10-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lixin Yang, Selena Ahmed, John Richard Stepp, Kai Mi, Yanqiang Zhao, Junzeng Ma, Chen Liang, Shengji Pei, Huyin Huai, Gang Xu, Alan C Hamilton, Zhi-wei Yang, Dayuan Xue

Abstract

Homegardens are ecologically and culturally important systems for cultivating medicinal plants for wellbeing by healers and farmers in Naxi communities of the Sino Himalayan region. The cultivation of medicinal plants in Naxi communities and associated ethnomedical knowledge base for maintaining and utilizing these resources is at risk with expanded commercialization of natural resources, development policies and rapid socio-economic change in China. Research is needed to understand the medicinal plant species maintained in Naxi homegardens, their use and contribution to community wellbeing, and how these practices and knowledge base varies between Naxi healers and farmers in order to develop plans for biodiversity conservation and preservation of ethnomedical practices. The main objective of this study is to document and compare medicinal plant species in Naxi homegardens and associated ethnomedical knowledge between Naxi healers and farmers.

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 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Pakistan 1 1%
Unknown 84 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 21%
Researcher 16 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Lecturer 5 6%
Other 16 19%
Unknown 10 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 30 35%
Environmental Science 15 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 7%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 18 21%

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 18 February 2014.
All research outputs
#15,118,297
of 18,883,809 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
#604
of 694 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,392
of 269,642 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
#19
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,883,809 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 694 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 269,642 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.