↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of RFID Tags to Permanently Mark Trees in Natural Populations

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Plant Science, August 2016
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 (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
9 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
Evaluation of RFID Tags to Permanently Mark Trees in Natural Populations
Published in
Frontiers in Plant Science, August 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpls.2016.01342
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tobias Marczewski, Yongpeng Ma, Weibang Sun

Abstract

Long-term ecological and genetic studies in natural populations of tree species require marking techniques so that individuals can be re-visited over time, even in difficult terrain. Both GPS coordinates and physical labels have disadvantages that can make re-finding trees difficult. We tested passive and semi-active radio frequency identification (RFID) tags and readers as a means to relocate individual trees. Passive RFID tags do not provide a good solution because of low transmission power of hand-held readers and strong directionality. Semi-active RFID tags provide detection over longer distances, but also suffer from strong directionality. Active RFID tags promise an improvement over semi-passive tags, and could be evaluated in a future study. We conclude that RFID technology has the potential to improve the ability of researchers to locate individual trees repeatedly under natural conditions, and can be used in conjunction with other marking techniques such as physical tags and GPS coordinates.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Lecturer 2 22%
Researcher 2 22%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 11%
Student > Master 1 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 11%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 22%
Engineering 2 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 11%
Computer Science 1 11%
Unknown 3 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 August 2016.
All research outputs
#2,143,747
of 22,883,326 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#908
of 20,271 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,591
of 337,480 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#22
of 429 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,883,326 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 20,271 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 337,480 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 429 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.