| Title |
Regional Management of Farmland Feeding Geese Using an Ecological Prioritization Tool
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Ambio, March 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13280-014-0515-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jesper Madsen, Morten Bjerrum, Ingunn M. Tombre |
| Abstract |
Wild geese foraging on farmland cause increasing conflicts with agricultural interests, calling for a strategic approach to mitigation. In central Norway, conflicts between farmers and spring-staging pink-footed geese feeding on pastures have escalated. To alleviate the conflict, a scheme by which farmers are subsidized to allow geese to forage undisturbed was introduced. To guide allocation of subsidies, an ecological-based ranking of fields at a regional level was recommended and applied. Here we evaluate the scheme. On average, 40 % of subsidized fields were in the top 5 % of the ranking, and 80 % were within the top 20 %. Goose grazing pressure on subsidized pastures was 13 times higher compared to a stratified random selection of non-subsidized pastures, capturing 67 % of the pasture feeding geese despite that subsidized fields only comprised 13 % of the grassland area. Close dialogue between scientists and managers is regarded as a key to the success of the scheme. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Norway | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 42 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 21% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 12% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Researcher | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 14 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 17 | 40% |
| Environmental Science | 7 | 16% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Engineering | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 15 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 21 August 2019.
All research outputs
#4,505,602
of 22,751,628 outputs
Outputs from Ambio
#726
of 1,623 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,951
of 224,565 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ambio
#15
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,751,628 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,623 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 224,565 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.