↓ Skip to main content

Ability of Matrix Models to Explain the Past and Predict the Future of Plant Populations

Overview of attention for article published in Conservation Biology, April 2013
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 (85th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
136 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
231 Mendeley
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
Ability of Matrix Models to Explain the Past and Predict the Future of Plant Populations
Published in
Conservation Biology, April 2013
DOI 10.1111/cobi.12049
Pubmed ID
Authors

ELIZABETH E. CRONE, MARTHA M. ELLIS, WILLIAM F. MORRIS, AMANDA STANLEY, TIMOTHY BELL, PAULETTE BIERZYCHUDEK, JOHAN EHRLÉN, THOMAS N. KAYE, TIFFANY M. KNIGHT, PETER LESICA, GERARD OOSTERMEIJER, PEDRO F. QUINTANA‐ASCENCIO, TAMARA TICKTIN, TERESA VALVERDE, JENNIFER L. WILLIAMS, DANIEL F. DOAK, RENGAIAN GANESAN, KATHYRN MCEACHERN, ANDREA S. THORPE, ERIC S. MENGES

Abstract

Uncertainty associated with ecological forecasts has long been recognized, but forecast accuracy is rarely quantified. We evaluated how well data on 82 populations of 20 species of plants spanning 3 continents explained and predicted plant population dynamics. We parameterized stage-based matrix models with demographic data from individually marked plants and determined how well these models forecast population sizes observed at least 5 years into the future. Simple demographic models forecasted population dynamics poorly; only 40% of observed population sizes fell within our forecasts' 95% confidence limits. However, these models explained population dynamics during the years in which data were collected; observed changes in population size during the data-collection period were strongly positively correlated with population growth rate. Thus, these models are at least a sound way to quantify population status. Poor forecasts were not associated with the number of individual plants or years of data. We tested whether vital rates were density dependent and found both positive and negative density dependence. However, density dependence was not associated with forecast error. Forecast error was significantly associated with environmental differences between the data collection and forecast periods. To forecast population fates, more detailed models, such as those that project how environments are likely to change and how these changes will affect population dynamics, may be needed. Such detailed models are not always feasible. Thus, it may be wiser to make risk-averse decisions than to expect precise forecasts from models.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 231 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 2%
Brazil 4 2%
Netherlands 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Unknown 216 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 41 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 40 17%
Student > Master 23 10%
Student > Bachelor 22 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 20 9%
Other 55 24%
Unknown 30 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 123 53%
Environmental Science 54 23%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 4 2%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 1%
Arts and Humanities 2 <1%
Other 8 3%
Unknown 37 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 10 December 2022.
All research outputs
#3,458,690
of 24,549,201 outputs
Outputs from Conservation Biology
#1,623
of 3,965 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,515
of 203,285 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Conservation Biology
#18
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,549,201 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,965 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 203,285 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 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 60% of its contemporaries.