↓ Skip to main content

Evaluating different methods used in ethnobotanical and ecological studies to record plant biodiversity

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
5 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
159 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
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 159 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 1%
Kenya 1 <1%
Uganda 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Benin 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Unknown 152 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 18%
Student > Master 25 16%
Student > Bachelor 24 15%
Researcher 18 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 9%
Other 30 19%
Unknown 20 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 61 38%
Environmental Science 38 24%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 3%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 4 3%
Other 19 12%
Unknown 27 17%

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 03 July 2015.
All research outputs
#2,043,064
of 5,310,460 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
#167
of 403 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,249
of 129,114 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
#10
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 5,310,460 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 60th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 403 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 129,114 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 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 54% of its contemporaries.