| Title |
Human proximity and habitat fragmentation are key drivers of the rangewide bonobo distribution
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Biodiversity and Conservation, October 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10531-013-0572-7 |
| Authors |
Jena R. Hickey, Janet Nackoney, Nathan P. Nibbelink, Stephen Blake, Aime Bonyenge, Sally Coxe, Jef Dupain, Maurice Emetshu, Takeshi Furuichi, Falk Grossmann, Patrick Guislain, John Hart, Chie Hashimoto, Bernard Ikembelo, Omari Ilambu, Bila-Isia Inogwabini, Innocent Liengola, Albert Lotana Lokasola, Alain Lushimba, Fiona Maisels, Joel Masselink, Valentin Mbenzo, Norbert Mbangia Mulavwa, Pascal Naky, Nicolas Mwanza Ndunda, Pele Nkumu, Valentin Omasombo, Gay Edwards Reinartz, Robert Rose, Tetsuya Sakamaki, Samantha Strindberg, Hiroyuki Takemoto, Ashley Vosper, Hjalmar S. Kühl |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 27% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 20% |
| Canada | 1 | 7% |
| Germany | 1 | 7% |
| Spain | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 5 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 12 | 80% |
| Scientists | 2 | 13% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 155 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 2% |
| Germany | 2 | 1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 146 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 45 | 29% |
| Researcher | 26 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 24 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 20 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 8% |
| Other | 15 | 10% |
| Unknown | 13 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 61 | 39% |
| Environmental Science | 43 | 28% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 7 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 12 | 8% |
| Unknown | 20 | 13% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 147. 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 02 March 2023.
All research outputs
#279,795
of 25,397,764 outputs
Outputs from Biodiversity and Conservation
#20
of 2,423 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,074
of 225,545 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biodiversity and Conservation
#2
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,397,764 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,423 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 225,545 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 99% 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 done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.