↓ Skip to main content

Detecting spatial regimes in ecosystems

Overview of attention for article published in Ecology Letters, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
175 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
Detecting spatial regimes in ecosystems
Published in
Ecology Letters, December 2016
DOI 10.1111/ele.12709
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shana M. Sundstrom, Tarsha Eason, R. John Nelson, David G. Angeler, Chris Barichievy, Ahjond S. Garmestani, Nicholas A.J. Graham, Dean Granholm, Lance Gunderson, Melinda Knutson, Kirsty L. Nash, Trisha Spanbauer, Craig A. Stow, Craig R. Allen

Abstract

Research on early warning indicators has generally focused on assessing temporal transitions with limited application of these methods to detecting spatial regimes. Traditional spatial boundary detection procedures that result in ecoregion maps are typically based on ecological potential (i.e. potential vegetation), and often fail to account for ongoing changes due to stressors such as land use change and climate change and their effects on plant and animal communities. We use Fisher information, an information theory-based method, on both terrestrial and aquatic animal data (U.S. Breeding Bird Survey and marine zooplankton) to identify ecological boundaries, and compare our results to traditional early warning indicators, conventional ecoregion maps and multivariate analyses such as nMDS and cluster analysis. We successfully detected spatial regimes and transitions in both terrestrial and aquatic systems using Fisher information. Furthermore, Fisher information provided explicit spatial information about community change that is absent from other multivariate approaches. Our results suggest that defining spatial regimes based on animal communities may better reflect ecological reality than do traditional ecoregion maps, especially in our current era of rapid and unpredictable ecological change.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 175 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
Canada 2 1%
Sweden 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 167 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 40 23%
Researcher 39 22%
Student > Master 24 14%
Student > Bachelor 8 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 4%
Other 23 13%
Unknown 34 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 54 31%
Environmental Science 53 30%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 8 5%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 1%
Other 10 6%
Unknown 43 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 25 March 2018.
All research outputs
#6,336,039
of 24,798,538 outputs
Outputs from Ecology Letters
#2,144
of 3,061 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,609
of 431,876 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ecology Letters
#41
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,798,538 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,061 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.3. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 431,876 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.