↓ Skip to main content

Redefining Thermal Regimes to Design Reserves for Coral Reefs in the Face of Climate Change

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
97 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
Redefining Thermal Regimes to Design Reserves for Coral Reefs in the Face of Climate Change
Published in
PLOS ONE, October 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0110634
Pubmed ID
Authors

Iliana Chollett, Susana Enríquez, Peter J. Mumby

Abstract

Reef managers cannot fight global warming through mitigation at local scale, but they can use information on thermal patterns to plan for reserve networks that maximize the probability of persistence of their reef system. Here we assess previous methods for the design of reserves for climate change and present a new approach to prioritize areas for conservation that leverages the most desirable properties of previous approaches. The new method moves the science of reserve design for climate change a step forwards by: (1) recognizing the role of seasonal acclimation in increasing the limits of environmental tolerance of corals and ameliorating the bleaching response; (2) using the best proxy for acclimatization currently available; (3) including information from several bleaching events, which frequency is likely to increase in the future; (4) assessing relevant variability at country scales, where most management plans are carried out. We demonstrate the method in Honduras, where a reassessment of the marine spatial plan is in progress.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Jamaica 1 1%
Mexico 1 1%
Kenya 1 1%
Unknown 92 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 18%
Student > Master 14 14%
Student > Bachelor 10 10%
Other 10 10%
Other 13 13%
Unknown 12 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 38 39%
Environmental Science 27 28%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 8 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Chemistry 2 2%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 13 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 January 2018.
All research outputs
#4,220,754
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#51,709
of 225,486 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,741
of 277,170 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,019
of 5,227 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 225,486 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 277,170 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,227 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.