| Title |
Novel Organisms: Comparing Invasive Species, GMOs, and Emerging Pathogens
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Ambio, March 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13280-013-0387-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jonathan M. Jeschke, Felicia Keesing, Richard S. Ostfeld |
| Abstract |
Invasive species, range-expanding species, genetically modified organisms (GMOs), synthetic organisms, and emerging pathogens increasingly affect the human environment. We propose a framework that allows comparison of consecutive stages that such novel organisms go through. The framework provides a common terminology for novel organisms, facilitating knowledge exchange among researchers, managers, and policy makers that work on, or have to make effective decisions about, novel organisms. The framework also indicates that knowledge about the causes and consequences of stage transitions for the better studied novel organisms, such as invasive species, can be transferred to more poorly studied ones, such as GMOs and emerging pathogens. Finally, the framework advances understanding of how climate change can affect the establishment, spread, and impacts of novel organisms, and how biodiversity affects, and is affected by, novel organisms. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 148 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 2 | 1% |
| Mexico | 2 | 1% |
| Ecuador | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Peru | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 137 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 28 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 27 | 18% |
| Researcher | 23 | 16% |
| Professor | 11 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 7% |
| Other | 26 | 18% |
| Unknown | 22 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 75 | 51% |
| Environmental Science | 29 | 20% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 6 | 4% |
| Unknown | 24 | 16% |
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 07 March 2013.
All research outputs
#21,631,160
of 24,144,324 outputs
Outputs from Ambio
#1,683
of 1,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#174,614
of 197,866 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ambio
#16
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,144,324 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,728 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 197,866 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.