↓ Skip to main content

The Tens Rule in Invasion Biology: Measure of a True Impact or Our Lack of Knowledge and Understanding?

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Management, September 2012
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 (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
145 Mendeley
Title
The Tens Rule in Invasion Biology: Measure of a True Impact or Our Lack of Knowledge and Understanding?
Published in
Environmental Management, September 2012
DOI 10.1007/s00267-012-9951-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

I. Jarić, G. Cvijanović

Abstract

The Tens Rule, as well as the last stage described therein, i.e., the proportion of established species that becomes pests, is frequently perceived by the scientific community to indicate that introduced established species have little impact on communities. This belief is dangerous because it strengthens the perspective of the general public and decision makers that the risks of species introductions are largely overestimated. It is often difficult to detect the actual negative impact of an introduced established species. It might be less apparent or indirect; it might be delayed or masked by the "noise" caused by other anthropogenic disturbances. It is also likely that numerous ecological interactions are still not detected or properly understood. Therefore, the ten-percent rule might be more of an indicator of our lack of understanding of the impacts that established introduced species produce than the actual ratio of such species that produces negative impacts. In such a state of affairs, adopting the precautionary principle is crucial. The scientific community must be much more cautious and responsible regarding the message it delivers to the general public and management authorities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 145 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 2 1%
Brazil 2 1%
Hungary 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 136 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 18%
Student > Bachelor 18 12%
Researcher 12 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 5%
Other 20 14%
Unknown 34 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 56 39%
Environmental Science 33 23%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 1%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 1%
Design 2 1%
Other 11 8%
Unknown 39 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 13 July 2023.
All research outputs
#4,312,648
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Management
#310
of 1,914 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,704
of 189,238 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Management
#4
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,914 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 189,238 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.