| Title |
Effect of coffee agriculture management on the population structure of a forest dwelling rodent (Heteromys desmarestianus goldmani)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Conservation Genetics, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10592-017-1016-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Beatriz Otero-Jiménez, John H. Vandermeer, Priscilla K. Tucker |
| Abstract |
Most of the natural habitat in tropical regions exists as scattered fragments embedded in a matrix of different agricultural uses. As a result of this agricultural expansion, habitat loss and fragmentation have become the main drivers of biodiversity loss. Understanding the long-term effects of agricultural management on populations is of great importance for the development of successful conservation strategies. Our study uses genetic data to determine the effect of agricultural management practices on the population structure of a common tropical forest rodent (Heteromys desmarestianus goldmani). We sampled 136 individuals from one forest fragment and three coffee farms representing varying degrees of management intensity in southern Mexico. Using microsatellite markers, we evaluated the genetic structure of H. d. goldmani in the study area. Our results show higher genetic differentiation and lower connectivity for individuals within high and medium intensity coffee farms than for those near and within the forest fragments. Our results suggest that the population structure observed is driven by landscape characteristics other than distance. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Curaçao | 1 | 20% |
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 39 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 10% |
| Researcher | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Unknown | 10 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 11 | 28% |
| Environmental Science | 7 | 18% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 12 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 23 October 2017.
All research outputs
#12,862,254
of 23,005,189 outputs
Outputs from Conservation Genetics
#721
of 1,049 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,945
of 324,597 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Conservation Genetics
#11
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,005,189 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,049 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 324,597 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 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.