↓ Skip to main content

A practical guide to the application of the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems criteria

Overview of attention for article published in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, February 2015
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 (92nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
97 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
363 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
A practical guide to the application of the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems criteria
Published in
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, February 2015
DOI 10.1098/rstb.2014.0003
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jon Paul Rodríguez, David A. Keith, Kathryn M. Rodríguez-Clark, Nicholas J. Murray, Emily Nicholson, Tracey J. Regan, Rebecca M. Miller, Edmund G. Barrow, Lucie M. Bland, Kaia Boe, Thomas M. Brooks, María A. Oliveira-Miranda, Mark Spalding, Piet Wit

Abstract

The newly developed IUCN Red List of Ecosystems is part of a growing toolbox for assessing risks to biodiversity, which addresses ecosystems and their functioning. The Red List of Ecosystems standard allows systematic assessment of all freshwater, marine, terrestrial and subterranean ecosystem types in terms of their global risk of collapse. In addition, the Red List of Ecosystems categories and criteria provide a technical base for assessments of ecosystem status at the regional, national, or subnational level. While the Red List of Ecosystems criteria were designed to be widely applicable by scientists and practitioners, guidelines are needed to ensure they are implemented in a standardized manner to reduce epistemic uncertainties and allow robust comparisons among ecosystems and over time. We review the intended application of the Red List of Ecosystems assessment process, summarize 'best-practice' methods for ecosystem assessments and outline approaches to ensure operational rigour of assessments. The Red List of Ecosystems will inform priority setting for ecosystem types worldwide, and strengthen capacity to report on progress towards the Aichi Targets of the Convention on Biological Diversity. When integrated with other IUCN knowledge products, such as the World Database of Protected Areas/Protected Planet, Key Biodiversity Areas and the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, the Red List of Ecosystems will contribute to providing the most complete global measure of the status of biodiversity yet achieved.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 363 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 1%
Brazil 3 <1%
Colombia 2 <1%
Australia 2 <1%
Italy 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Kenya 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 343 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 76 21%
Student > Master 54 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 48 13%
Student > Bachelor 38 10%
Other 23 6%
Other 56 15%
Unknown 68 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 118 33%
Environmental Science 113 31%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 14 4%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 6 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 1%
Other 23 6%
Unknown 84 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 20 October 2023.
All research outputs
#1,692,367
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
#1,494
of 7,201 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,598
of 271,023 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
#38
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,201 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 271,023 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 100 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 62% of its contemporaries.