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
| Chapter title |
Phenotyping Crop Root Crowns: General Guidance and Specific Protocols for Maize, Wheat, and Soybean
|
|---|---|
| Chapter number | 2 |
| Book title |
Root Development
|
| Published in |
Methods in molecular biology, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/978-1-4939-7747-5_2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Book ISBNs |
978-1-4939-7746-8, 978-1-4939-7747-5
|
| Authors |
Larry M. York, York, Larry M. |
| Abstract |
Root crown phenotyping allows measuring many parameters that describe the top portion of crop root systems and can be used for the basis of genome-wide association studies, QTL analysis, and physiology studies. Root crown phenotyping is a relatively simple process, with the major steps being excavation, transport, soil removal, and measurements. On the other hand, all steps require substantial manual labor and occur outside in challenging environments, and many factors influence the ultimate success of applying this methodology to research questions. Here, general guidance is given for how to optimize root crown phenotyping for unique research questions, and specific protocols are given for acquiring images of root crowns of three crop species: maize, wheat, and soybean. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 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 | 13 | 45% |
| Ireland | 2 | 7% |
| India | 2 | 7% |
| Australia | 1 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 3% |
| Canada | 1 | 3% |
| China | 1 | 3% |
| Italy | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 7 | 24% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 14 | 48% |
| Scientists | 13 | 45% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 24 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 25% |
| Researcher | 4 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 9 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 42% |
| Environmental Science | 2 | 8% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 7 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 21 March 2018.
All research outputs
#1,974,527
of 24,076,951 outputs
Outputs from Methods in molecular biology
#279
of 13,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,271
of 336,113 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in molecular biology
#4
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,076,951 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,576 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 336,113 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 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 95% of its contemporaries.