↓ Skip to main content

Community assessment of tropical tree biomass: challenges and opportunities for REDD+

Overview of attention for article published in Carbon Balance and Management, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 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
Community assessment of tropical tree biomass: challenges and opportunities for REDD+
Published in
Carbon Balance and Management, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13021-015-0028-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ida Theilade, Ervan Rutishauser, Michael K Poulsen

Abstract

REDD+ programs rely on accurate forest carbon monitoring. Several REDD+ projects have recently shown that local communities can monitor above ground biomass as well as external professionals, but at lower costs. However, the precision and accuracy of carbon monitoring conducted by local communities have rarely been assessed in the tropics. The aim of this study was to investigate different sources of error in tree biomass measurements conducted by community monitors and determine the effect on biomass estimates. Furthermore, we explored the potential of local ecological knowledge to assess wood density and botanical identification of trees. Community monitors were able to measure tree DBH accurately, but some large errors were found in girth measurements of large and odd-shaped trees. Monitors with experience from the logging industry performed better than monitors without previous experience. Indeed, only experienced monitors were able to discriminate trees with low wood densities. Local ecological knowledge did not allow consistent tree identification across monitors. Future REDD+ programmes may benefit from the systematic training of local monitors in tree DBH measurement, with special attention given to large and odd-shaped trees. A better understanding of traditional classification systems and concepts is required for local tree identifications and wood density estimates to become useful in monitoring of biomass and tree diversity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 2%
Australia 1 2%
Unknown 47 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 20%
Researcher 8 16%
Student > Master 5 10%
Other 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 11 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 20 41%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 12%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 5 10%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Unspecified 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 12 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 27 July 2015.
All research outputs
#6,795,218
of 22,818,766 outputs
Outputs from Carbon Balance and Management
#111
of 236 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,488
of 263,272 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Carbon Balance and Management
#3
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,818,766 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 236 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 263,272 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.