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.
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 |
Pitfalls in Root Trait Calculations: How Ignoring Diameter Heterogeneity Can Lead to Overestimation of Functional Traits
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Plant Science, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpls.2017.00898 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Laura Rose |
| Abstract |
Specific root length (SRL) and root tissue density (RTD) are ecologically functional traits which are calculated from root length or volume and root dry weight. Both can be converted into each other using the root diameter assuming roots are cylindrical. The calculation of volume from length or length from volume is, however, problematic because samples of roots do usually not have a constant diameter. Ignorance of the diameter heterogeneity leads to an overestimation of length and an underestimation of volume if standard formulas are used. Here I show for two datasets that SRL and RTD are overestimated on average 67% for the two analyzed datasets, but up to 150%, if calculated from each other. I further highlight that the volume values for the total sample as provided by the commonly used software WinRHIZO(TM) should only be used for objects with constant diameter. I recommend to use volume values provided for each diameter class of a sample if WinRHIZO(TM) is used. If manual methods, like the line-intersect method, are used, roots should be separated into diameter classes before length measurements if the volume is calculated from length. Trait to trait conversions for whole samples are not recommended. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 98 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 25 | 26% |
| Student > Master | 19 | 19% |
| Researcher | 18 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 5% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 9% |
| Unknown | 18 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 40 | 41% |
| Environmental Science | 17 | 17% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 4% |
| Engineering | 3 | 3% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 5% |
| Unknown | 27 | 28% |
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 04 July 2017.
All research outputs
#18,555,330
of 22,981,247 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#13,924
of 20,432 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#239,559
of 314,111 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#462
of 582 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,981,247 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 20,432 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 314,111 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 582 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.