↓ Skip to main content

Coral reef management and conservation in light of rapidly evolving ecological paradigms

Overview of attention for article published in Trends in Ecology & Evolution, August 2008
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 (95th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
478 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1185 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Coral reef management and conservation in light of rapidly evolving ecological paradigms
Published in
Trends in Ecology & Evolution, August 2008
DOI 10.1016/j.tree.2008.06.011
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter J. Mumby, Robert S. Steneck

Abstract

The decline of many coral reef ecosystems in recent decades surprised experienced managers and researchers. It shattered old paradigms that these diverse ecosystems are spatially uniform and temporally stable on the scale of millennia. We now see reefs as heterogeneous, fragile, globally stressed ecosystems structured by strong positive or negative feedback processes. We review the causes and consequences of reef decline and ask whether management practices are addressing the problem at appropriate scales. We conclude that both science and management are currently failing to address the comanagement of extractive activities and ecological processes that drive ecosystems (e.g. productivity and herbivory). Most reef conservation efforts are directed toward reserve implementation, but new approaches are needed to sustain ecosystem function in exploited areas.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 1,185 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 12 1%
United States 8 <1%
Mexico 6 <1%
France 5 <1%
Sweden 4 <1%
South Africa 4 <1%
Canada 3 <1%
Poland 2 <1%
Portugal 2 <1%
Other 25 2%
Unknown 1114 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 265 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 203 17%
Student > Bachelor 179 15%
Researcher 175 15%
Other 51 4%
Other 170 14%
Unknown 142 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 510 43%
Environmental Science 350 30%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 64 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 24 2%
Social Sciences 15 1%
Other 53 4%
Unknown 169 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 05 July 2016.
All research outputs
#1,667,366
of 25,795,662 outputs
Outputs from Trends in Ecology & Evolution
#977
of 3,226 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,042
of 95,481 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trends in Ecology & Evolution
#6
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,795,662 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,226 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 31.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 95,481 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 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 68% of its contemporaries.