↓ Skip to main content

Carnivore Use of Avocado Orchards across an Agricultural-Wildland Gradient

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, July 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 (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 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
Carnivore Use of Avocado Orchards across an Agricultural-Wildland Gradient
Published in
PLOS ONE, July 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0068025
Pubmed ID
Authors

Theresa M. Nogeire, Frank W. Davis, Jennifer M. Duggan, Kevin R. Crooks, Erin E. Boydston

Abstract

Wide-ranging species cannot persist in reserves alone. Consequently, there is growing interest in the conservation value of agricultural lands that separate or buffer natural areas. The value of agricultural lands for wildlife habitat and connectivity varies as a function of the crop type and landscape context, and quantifying these differences will improve our ability to manage these lands more effectively for animals. In southern California, many species are present in avocado orchards, including mammalian carnivores. We examined occupancy of avocado orchards by mammalian carnivores across agricultural-wildland gradients in southern California with motion-activated cameras. More carnivore species were detected with cameras in orchards than in wildland sites, and for bobcats and gray foxes, orchards were associated with higher occupancy rates. Our results demonstrate that agricultural lands have potential to contribute to conservation by providing habitat or facilitating landscape connectivity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
India 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 71 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 24%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Student > Master 6 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 4%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 12 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 37 49%
Environmental Science 16 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 1%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 1%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 17 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 June 2016.
All research outputs
#2,200,300
of 22,713,403 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#28,054
of 193,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,880
of 194,347 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#756
of 4,780 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,713,403 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 194,347 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,780 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.