↓ Skip to main content

Detecting conservation benefits of marine reserves on remote reefs of the northern GBR

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
39 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 Mendeley
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.
Title
Detecting conservation benefits of marine reserves on remote reefs of the northern GBR
Published in
PLOS ONE, November 2017
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0186146
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carolina Castro-Sanguino, Yves-Marie Bozec, Alexandra Dempsey, Badi R. Samaniego, Katie Lubarsky, Stefan Andrews, Valeriya Komyakova, Juan Carlos Ortiz, William D. Robbins, Philip G. Renaud, Peter J. Mumby

Abstract

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP) is the largest network of marine reserves in the world, yet little is known of the efficacy of no-fishing zones in the relatively lightly-exploited remote parts of the system (i.e., northern regions). Here, we find that the detection of reserve effects is challenging and that heterogeneity in benthic habitat composition, specifically branching coral cover, is one of the strongest driving forces of fish assemblages. As expected, the biomass of targeted fish species was generally greater (up to 5-fold) in no-take zones than in fished zones, but we found no differences between the two forms of no-take zone: 'no-take' versus 'no-entry'. Strong effects of zoning were detected in the remote Far-North inshore reefs and more central outer reefs, but surprisingly fishing effects were absent in the less remote southern locations. Moreover, the biomass of highly targeted species was nearly 2-fold greater in fished areas of the Far-North than in any reserve (no-take or no-entry) further south. Despite high spatial variability in fish biomass, our results suggest that fishing pressure is greater in southern areas and that poaching within reserves may be common. Our results also suggest that fishers 'fish the line' as stock sizes in exploited areas decreased near larger no-take zones. Interestingly, an analysis of zoning effects on small, non-targeted fishes appeared to suggest a top-down effect from mesopredators, but was instead explained by variability in benthic composition. Thus, we demonstrate the importance of including appropriate covariates when testing for evidence of trophic cascades and reserve successes or failures.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 39 X users 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 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 81 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 23%
Student > Master 13 16%
Researcher 12 15%
Other 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 18 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 29 36%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 23%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Unspecified 1 1%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 22 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 44. 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 10 December 2017.
All research outputs
#914,158
of 24,953,268 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#11,997
of 216,204 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,272
of 337,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#250
of 3,574 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,953,268 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 216,204 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 337,991 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,574 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.