↓ Skip to main content

Spatial conservation prioritization of biodiversity spanning the evolutionary continuum

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Ecology & Evolution, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
61 X users
facebook
8 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
79 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
224 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
Spatial conservation prioritization of biodiversity spanning the evolutionary continuum
Published in
Nature Ecology & Evolution, April 2017
DOI 10.1038/s41559-017-0151
Pubmed ID
Authors

Silvia B. Carvalho, Guillermo Velo-Antón, Pedro Tarroso, Ana Paula Portela, Mafalda Barata, Salvador Carranza, Craig Moritz, Hugh P. Possingham

Abstract

Accounting for evolutionary relationships between and within species is important for biodiversity conservation planning, but is rarely considered in practice. Here we introduce a novel framework to identify priority conservation areas accounting for phylogenetic and intraspecific diversity, integrating concepts from phylogeny, phylogeography, spatial statistics and spatial conservation prioritization. The framework allows planners to incorporate and combine different levels of evolutionary diversity and can be applied to any taxonomic group and to any region in the world. We illustrate our approach using amphibian and reptile species occurring in a biodiversity hotspot region, the Iberian Peninsula. We found that explicitly incorporating phylogenetic and intraspecific diversity in systematic conservation planning provides advantages in terms of maximizing overall biodiversity representation while enhancing its persistence and evolutionary potential. Our results emphasize the need to account for the evolutionary continuum in order to efficiently implement biodiversity conservation planning decisions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 61 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 224 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 1%
Portugal 2 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 216 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 44 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 43 19%
Student > Master 35 16%
Other 15 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 6%
Other 37 17%
Unknown 37 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 93 42%
Environmental Science 49 22%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 6%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 9 4%
Unspecified 4 2%
Other 8 4%
Unknown 48 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 July 2018.
All research outputs
#1,110,303
of 24,341,979 outputs
Outputs from Nature Ecology & Evolution
#1,304
of 1,992 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,659
of 314,438 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Ecology & Evolution
#64
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,341,979 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,992 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 151.8. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 314,438 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.