↓ Skip to main content

Wiley Online Library

Ecosystem services altered by human changes in the nitrogen cycle: a new perspective for US decision making

Overview of attention for article published in Ecology Letters, May 2011
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 (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
158 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
430 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Ecosystem services altered by human changes in the nitrogen cycle: a new perspective for US decision making
Published in
Ecology Letters, May 2011
DOI 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01631.x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jana E. Compton, John A. Harrison, Robin L. Dennis, Tara L. Greaver, Brian H. Hill, Stephen J. Jordan, Henry Walker, Holly V. Campbell

Abstract

Human alteration of the nitrogen (N) cycle has produced benefits for health and well-being, but excess N has altered many ecosystems and degraded air and water quality. US regulations mandate protection of the environment in terms that directly connect to ecosystem services. Here, we review the science quantifying effects of N on key ecosystem services, and compare the costs of N-related impacts or mitigation using the metric of cost per unit of N. Damage costs to the provision of clean air, reflected by impaired human respiratory health, are well characterized and fairly high (e.g. costs of ozone and particulate damages of $28 per kg NO(x)-N). Damage to services associated with productivity, biodiversity, recreation and clean water are less certain and although generally lower, these costs are quite variable (<$2.2-56 per kg N). In the current Chesapeake Bay restoration effort, for example, the collection of available damage costs clearly exceeds the projected abatement costs to reduce N loads to the Bay ($8-15 per kg N). Explicit consideration and accounting of effects on multiple ecosystem services provides decision-makers an integrated view of N sources, damages and abatement costs to address the significant challenges associated with reducing N pollution.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 430 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 11 3%
South Africa 4 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Japan 2 <1%
Mexico 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Other 5 1%
Unknown 399 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 107 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 97 23%
Student > Master 57 13%
Student > Bachelor 32 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 31 7%
Other 72 17%
Unknown 34 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 154 36%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 130 30%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 34 8%
Engineering 13 3%
Social Sciences 12 3%
Other 28 7%
Unknown 59 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 28 January 2019.
All research outputs
#877,378
of 14,433,054 outputs
Outputs from Ecology Letters
#648
of 2,265 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#843,226
of 13,628,760 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ecology Letters
#625
of 2,182 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,433,054 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,265 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 13,628,760 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2,182 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.