↓ Skip to main content

Applications of Rapid Evaluation of Metapopulation Persistence (REMP) in Conservation Planning for Vulnerable Fauna Species

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Management, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
Title
Applications of Rapid Evaluation of Metapopulation Persistence (REMP) in Conservation Planning for Vulnerable Fauna Species
Published in
Environmental Management, February 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00267-016-0681-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Subhashni Taylor, Michael Drielsma, Robert Taylor, Lalit Kumar

Abstract

In many regions species are declining due to fragmentation and loss of habitat. If species persistence is to be achieved, ecologically informed, effective conservation action is required. Yet it remains a challenge to identify optimal places in a landscape to direct habitat reconstruction and management. Rather than relying on individual landscape metrics, process-based regional scale assessment methodology is needed that focuses primarily on species persistence. This means integrating, according to species' ecology, habitat extent, suitability, quality and spatial configuration. The rapid evaluation of metapopulation persistence (REMP) methodology has been developed for this purpose. However, till now no practical conservation planning application of REMP has been described. By integration of expert ecological knowledge, we extended REMP's capabilities to prioritize conservation action for a highly modified agricultural region of central NSW, Australia based on the metapopulation ecology of 34 fauna species. The region's current capacity to support the species was evaluated in relation to the pre-European state for which there was known viability. Six of the species were found to currently have insufficient habitat to support viable populations. Seeking locations to maximize overall improvement in viability for these species, we prioritized conservation action to locations near the threshold of metapopulation persistence.

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 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 3%
Unknown 31 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 22%
Unspecified 6 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Student > Master 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 6 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 41%
Environmental Science 10 31%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Unknown 7 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 06 December 2023.
All research outputs
#7,356,343
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Management
#624
of 1,914 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,944
of 313,051 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Management
#10
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,914 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 313,051 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.