↓ Skip to main content

Predictive accuracy of population viability analysis in conservation biology

Overview of attention for article published in Nature, March 2000
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 (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
523 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1208 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
connotea
3 Connotea
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.
Title
Predictive accuracy of population viability analysis in conservation biology
Published in
Nature, March 2000
DOI 10.1038/35006050
Pubmed ID
Authors

Barry W. Brook, Julian J. O'Grady, Andrew P. Chapman, Mark A. Burgman, H. Resit Akçakaya, Richard Frankham

Abstract

Population viability analysis (PVA) is widely applied in conservation biology to predict extinction risks for threatened species and to compare alternative options for their management. It can also be used as a basis for listing species as endangered under World Conservation Union criteria. However, there is considerable scepticism regarding the predictive accuracy of PVA, mainly because of a lack of validation in real systems. Here we conducted a retrospective test of PVA based on 21 long-term ecological studies--the first comprehensive and replicated evaluation of the predictive powers of PVA. Parameters were estimated from the first half of each data set and the second half was used to evaluate the performance of the model. Contrary to recent criticisms, we found that PVA predictions were surprisingly accurate. The risk of population decline closely matched observed outcomes, there was no significant bias, and population size projections did not differ significantly from reality. Furthermore, the predictions of the five PVA software packages were highly concordant. We conclude that PVA is a valid and sufficiently accurate tool for categorizing and managing endangered species.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,208 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 32 3%
Brazil 29 2%
United Kingdom 11 <1%
Australia 7 <1%
Canada 6 <1%
Argentina 4 <1%
Germany 4 <1%
France 4 <1%
South Africa 2 <1%
Other 31 3%
Unknown 1078 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 285 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 213 18%
Student > Master 181 15%
Student > Bachelor 147 12%
Professor 64 5%
Other 240 20%
Unknown 78 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 715 59%
Environmental Science 280 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 29 2%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 24 2%
Engineering 9 <1%
Other 43 4%
Unknown 108 9%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 29 May 2023.
All research outputs
#2,571,037
of 24,397,600 outputs
Outputs from Nature
#46,233
of 94,908 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,237
of 41,574 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature
#77
of 331 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,397,600 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 94,908 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 101.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 41,574 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 331 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.