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 |
Comparisons of allometric and climate-derived estimates of tree coarse root carbon stocks in forests of the United States
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Carbon Balance and Management, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13021-015-0032-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Matthew B. Russell, Grant M. Domke, Christopher W. Woodall, Anthony W. D’Amato |
| Abstract |
Refined estimation of carbon (C) stocks within forest ecosystems is a critical component of efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the effects of projected climate change through forest C management. Specifically, belowground C stocks are currently estimated in the United States' national greenhouse gas inventory (US NGHGI) using nationally consistent species- and diameter-specific equations applied to individual trees. Recent scientific evidence has pointed to the importance of climate as a driver of belowground C stocks. This study estimates belowground C using current methods applied in the US NGHGI and describes a new approach for merging both allometric models with climate-derived predictions of belowground C stocks. Climate-adjusted predictions were variable depending on the region and forest type of interest, but represented an increase of 368.87 Tg of belowground C across the US, or a 6.4 % increase when compared to currently-implemented NGHGI estimates. Random forests regressions indicated that aboveground biomass, stand age, and stand origin (i.e., planted versus artificial regeneration) were useful predictors of belowground C stocks. Decreases in belowground C stocks were modeled after projecting mean annual temperatures at various locations throughout the US up to year 2090. By combining allometric equations with trends in temperature, we conclude that climate variables can be used to adjust the US NGHGI estimates of belowground C stocks. Such strategies can be used to determine the effects of future global change scenarios within a C accounting framework. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| South Africa | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 37 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 16 | 42% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 11% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 4 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 16 | 42% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 21% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 4 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Psychology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 6 | 16% |
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 08 October 2015.
All research outputs
#17,772,019
of 22,826,360 outputs
Outputs from Carbon Balance and Management
#190
of 236 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,040
of 267,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Carbon Balance and Management
#5
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,826,360 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 267,016 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 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.