| Title |
Estimation of species extinction: what are the consequences when total species number is unknown?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Theory in Biosciences, April 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12064-014-0202-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Youhua Chen |
| Abstract |
The species-area relationship (SAR) is known to overestimate species extinction but the underlying mechanisms remain unclear to a great extent. Here, I show that when total species number in an area is unknown, the SAR model exaggerates the estimation of species extinction. It is proposed that to accurately estimate species extinction caused by habitat destruction, one of the principal prerequisites is to accurately total the species numbers presented in the whole study area. One can better evaluate and compare alternative theoretical SAR models on the accurate estimation of species loss only when the exact total species number for the whole area is clear. This presents an opportunity for ecologists to simulate more research on accurately estimating Whittaker's gamma diversity for the purpose of better predicting species loss. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 1 | 5% |
| Australia | 1 | 5% |
| Brazil | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 16 | 84% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 26% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 4 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 47% |
| Environmental Science | 3 | 16% |
| Psychology | 1 | 5% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 5 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 01 May 2014.
All research outputs
#15,299,919
of 22,754,104 outputs
Outputs from Theory in Biosciences
#121
of 194 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,794
of 226,726 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Theory in Biosciences
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,754,104 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 194 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 226,726 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.