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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Evaluating different methods used in ethnobotanical and ecological studies to record plant biodiversity
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, June 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1746-4269-10-48 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Henrique Costa Hermenegildo Silva, Rinaldo Luiz Ferreira Caraciolo, Luiz Carlos Marangon, Marcelo Alves Ramos, Lucilene Lima Santos, Ulysses Paulino Albuquerque |
| Abstract |
This study compares the efficiency of identifying the plants in an area of semi-arid Northeast Brazil by methods that a) access the local knowledge used in ethnobotanical studies using semi-structured interviews conducted within the entire community, an inventory interview conducted with two participants using the previously collected vegetation inventory, and a participatory workshop presenting exsiccates and photographs to 32 people and b) inventory the vegetation (phytosociology) in locations with different histories of disturbance using rectangular plots and quadrant points. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 201 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 2 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Kenya | 1 | <1% |
| Uganda | 1 | <1% |
| Benin | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 194 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 30 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 26 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 26 | 13% |
| Researcher | 24 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 17 | 8% |
| Other | 39 | 19% |
| Unknown | 39 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 70 | 35% |
| Environmental Science | 40 | 20% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 3% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 5 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 27 | 13% |
| Unknown | 48 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 04 August 2014.
All research outputs
#13,176,689
of 22,757,090 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
#418
of 732 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,809
of 229,145 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
#7
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,757,090 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 732 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 229,145 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 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 58% of its contemporaries.