↓ Skip to main content

Accounting for density reduction and structural loss in standing dead trees: Implications for forest biomass and carbon stock estimates in the United States

Overview of attention for article published in Carbon Balance and Management, November 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 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
Accounting for density reduction and structural loss in standing dead trees: Implications for forest biomass and carbon stock estimates in the United States
Published in
Carbon Balance and Management, November 2011
DOI 10.1186/1750-0680-6-14
Pubmed ID
Authors

Grant M Domke, Christopher W Woodall, James E Smith

Abstract

Standing dead trees are one component of forest ecosystem dead wood carbon (C) pools, whose national stock is estimated by the U.S. as required by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Historically, standing dead tree C has been estimated as a function of live tree growing stock volume in the U.S.'s National Greenhouse Gas Inventory. Initiated in 1998, the USDA Forest Service's Forest Inventory and Analysis program (responsible for compiling the Nation's forest C estimates) began consistent nationwide sampling of standing dead trees, which may now supplant previous purely model-based approaches to standing dead biomass and C stock estimation. A substantial hurdle to estimating standing dead tree biomass and C attributes is that traditional estimation procedures are based on merchantability paradigms that may not reflect density reductions or structural loss due to decomposition common in standing dead trees. The goal of this study was to incorporate standing dead tree adjustments into the current estimation procedures and assess how biomass and C stocks change at multiple spatial scales.

Mendeley readers

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 %
Brazil 1 1%
China 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Philippines 1 1%
Unknown 81 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 24%
Researcher 20 23%
Student > Master 15 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 3%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 11 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 35 41%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 19%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 8%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 6 7%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 12 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 24 November 2011.
All research outputs
#2,667,988
of 22,659,164 outputs
Outputs from Carbon Balance and Management
#51
of 236 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,112
of 239,474 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Carbon Balance and Management
#3
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,659,164 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 15.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 239,474 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
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 6 of them.