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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Cost‐efficient fenced reserves for conservation: single large or two small?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Ecological Applications, October 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1890/13-1579.1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kate J. Helmstedt, Hugh P. Possingham, Karl E. C. Brennan, Jonathan R. Rhodes, Michael Bode |
| Abstract |
Fences that exclude alien invasive species are used to reduce predation pressure on reintroduced threatened wildlife. Planning these continuously managed systems of reserves raises an important extension of the Single Large or Several Small (SLOSS) reserve planning framework: the added complexity of ongoing management. We investigate the long-term cost-efficiency of a single large or two small predator exclusion fences in the arid Australian context of reintroducing bilbies Macrotis lagotis, and we highlight the broader significance of our results with sensitivity analysis. A single fence more frequently results in a much larger net cost than two smaller fences. We find that the cost-efficiency of two fences is robust to strong demographic and environmental uncertainty, which can help managers to mitigate the risk of incurring high costs over the entire life of the project. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 3 | 50% |
| United States | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 4 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 81 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 22 | 27% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 7% |
| Unknown | 15 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 30 | 37% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 29 | 35% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 1% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 21 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 09 January 2018.
All research outputs
#2,603,760
of 24,701,898 outputs
Outputs from Ecological Applications
#680
of 3,334 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,643
of 259,017 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ecological Applications
#7
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,701,898 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,334 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 259,017 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 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 74% of its contemporaries.