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 |
Increasing neonicotinoid use and the declining butterfly fauna of lowland California
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Biology Letters, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1098/rsbl.2016.0475 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Matthew L. Forister, Bruce Cousens, Joshua G. Harrison, Kayce Anderson, James H. Thorne, Dave Waetjen, Chris C. Nice, Matthew De Parsia, Michelle L. Hladik, Robert Meese, Heidi van Vliet, Arthur M. Shapiro |
| Abstract |
The butterfly fauna of lowland Northern California has exhibited a marked decline in recent years that previous studies have attributed in part to altered climatic conditions and changes in land use. Here, we ask if a shift in insecticide use towards neonicotinoids is associated with butterfly declines at four sites in the region that have been monitored for four decades. A negative association between butterfly populations and increasing neonicotinoid application is detectable while controlling for land use and other factors, and appears to be more severe for smaller-bodied species. These results suggest that neonicotinoids could influence non-target insect populations occurring in proximity to application locations, and highlights the need for mechanistic work to complement long-term observational data. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 43 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 Kingdom | 9 | 21% |
| United States | 7 | 16% |
| Canada | 3 | 7% |
| Comoros | 1 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| Sweden | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 21 | 49% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 31 | 72% |
| Scientists | 5 | 12% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 5 | 12% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 167 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 2% |
| Serbia | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 162 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 32 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 28 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 20 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 18 | 11% |
| Professor | 11 | 7% |
| Other | 28 | 17% |
| Unknown | 30 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 72 | 43% |
| Environmental Science | 33 | 20% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 4% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 3 | 2% |
| Engineering | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 7 | 4% |
| Unknown | 43 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 185. 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 06 August 2022.
All research outputs
#195,144
of 23,942,830 outputs
Outputs from Biology Letters
#236
of 3,299 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,257
of 371,759 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biology Letters
#11
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,942,830 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,299 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 56.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 371,759 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.