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 |
A comparison of the wild food plant use knowledge of ethnic minorities in Naban River Watershed National Nature Reserve, Yunnan, SW China
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, May 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1746-4269-8-17 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Abdolbaset Ghorbani, Gerhard Langenberger, Joachim Sauerborn |
| Abstract |
Wild food plants (WFPs) contribute to the nutrition, economy and even cultural identity of people in many parts of the world. Different factors determine the preference and use of WFPs such as abundance, availability, cultural preference, economic conditions, shortage periods or unsecure food production systems. Understanding these factors and knowing the patterns of selection, use and cultural significance and value of wild food plants for local communities is helpful in setting priorities for conservation and/or domestication of these plants. Thus in this study knowledge of wild food plant use among four groups namely Dai, Lahu, Hani and Mountain Han in Naban River Watershed National Nature Reserve ((NRWNNR), Xishuangbanna were documented and analyzed to find the similarity and difference among their plant use. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 75% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Denmark | 2 | 2% |
| Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 115 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 25 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 13% |
| Researcher | 11 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 7% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 26 | 22% |
| Unknown | 28 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 41 | 34% |
| Environmental Science | 17 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 6% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 4 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 17 | 14% |
| Unknown | 30 | 25% |
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 01 June 2012.
All research outputs
#7,413,489
of 22,664,644 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
#318
of 730 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,082
of 163,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
#6
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,664,644 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 730 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 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 163,538 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.