↓ Skip to main content

Habitat Loss and Modification Due to Gas Development in the Fayetteville Shale

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Management, January 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 (81st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
facebook
4 Facebook pages
wikipedia
6 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 Mendeley
Title
Habitat Loss and Modification Due to Gas Development in the Fayetteville Shale
Published in
Environmental Management, January 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00267-014-0440-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew D. Moran, A. Brandon Cox, Rachel L. Wells, Chloe C. Benichou, Maureen R. McClung

Abstract

Hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling have become major methods to extract new oil and gas deposits, many of which exist in shale formations in the temperate deciduous biome of the eastern United States. While these technologies have increased natural gas production to new highs, they can have substantial environmental effects. We measured the changes in land use within the maturing Fayetteville Shale gas development region in Arkansas between 2001/2002 and 2012. Our goal was to estimate the land use impact of these new technologies in natural gas drilling and predict future consequences for habitat loss and fragmentation. Loss of natural forest in the gas field was significantly higher compared to areas outside the gas field. The creation of edge habitat, roads, and developed areas was also greater in the gas field. The Fayetteville Shale gas field fully developed about 2 % of the natural habitat within the region and increased edge habitat by 1,067 linear km. Our data indicate that without shale gas activities, forest cover would have increased slightly and edge habitat would have decreased slightly, similar to patterns seen recently in many areas of the southern U.S. On average, individual gas wells fully developed about 2.5 ha of land and modified an additional 0.5 ha of natural forest. Considering the large number of wells drilled in other parts of the eastern U.S. and projections for new wells in the future, shale gas development will likely have substantial negative effects on forested habitats and the organisms that depend upon them.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 3%
Indonesia 1 1%
Unknown 82 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 15%
Student > Bachelor 12 14%
Researcher 12 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 16 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 25 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 16%
Engineering 8 9%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 4 5%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 23 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 31 July 2023.
All research outputs
#4,907,609
of 25,661,882 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Management
#361
of 1,935 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,570
of 360,431 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Management
#8
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,661,882 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,935 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 360,431 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 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 57% of its contemporaries.