The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
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 |
Bacterial-Plant-Interactions: Approaches to Unravel the Biological Function of Bacterial Volatiles in the Rhizosphere
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Microbiology, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fmicb.2016.00108 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marco Kai, Uta Effmert, Birgit Piechulla |
| Abstract |
Rhizobacteria produce an enormous amount of volatile compounds, however, the function of these metabolites is scarcely understood. Investigations evaluating influences on plants performed in various laboratories using individually developed experimental setups revealed different and often contradictory results, e.g., ranging from a significant plant growth promotion to a dramatic suppression of plant development. In addition to these discrepancies, these test systems neglected properties and complexity of the rhizosphere. Therefore, to pursue further investigations of the role of bacterial volatiles in this underground habitat, the applied methods have to simulate its natural characteristics as much as possible. In this review, we will describe and discuss pros and cons of currently used bioassays, give insights into rhizosphere characteristics, and suggest improvements for test systems that would consider in natura conditions and would allow gaining further knowledge of the potential function and significance of rhizobacterial volatiles in plant life. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 4 | 80% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 3 | 60% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 256 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Peru | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Rwanda | 1 | <1% |
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 250 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 54 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 38 | 15% |
| Researcher | 33 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 24 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 21 | 8% |
| Other | 33 | 13% |
| Unknown | 53 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 124 | 48% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 30 | 12% |
| Environmental Science | 13 | 5% |
| Engineering | 8 | 3% |
| Chemistry | 7 | 3% |
| Other | 14 | 5% |
| Unknown | 60 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 16 October 2018.
All research outputs
#2,901,437
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#2,595
of 25,143 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,272
of 401,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#64
of 475 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,143 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 401,443 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 475 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.