↓ Skip to main content

Assessing and Prioritizing Ecological Communities for Monitoring in a Regional Habitat Conservation Plan

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Management, April 2008
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
97 Mendeley
Title
Assessing and Prioritizing Ecological Communities for Monitoring in a Regional Habitat Conservation Plan
Published in
Environmental Management, April 2008
DOI 10.1007/s00267-008-9109-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lauren A. Hierl, Janet Franklin, Douglas H. Deutschman, Helen M. Regan, Brenda S. Johnson

Abstract

In nature reserves and habitat conservation areas, monitoring is required to determine if reserves are meeting their goals for preserving species, ecological communities, and ecosystems. Increasingly, reserves are established to protect multiple species and communities, each with their own conservation goals and objectives. As resources are always inadequate to monitor all components, criteria must be applied to prioritize both species and communities for monitoring and management. While methods for prioritizing species based on endangerment or risk have been established, approaches to prioritizing ecological communities for monitoring are not well developed, despite a long-standing emphasis on communities as target elements in reserve design. We established guidelines based on four criteria derived from basic principles of conservation and landscape ecology--extent, representativeness, fragmentation, and endangerment--to prioritize communities in the San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MSCP). The MSCP was one of the first multiple-species habitat conservation areas established in California, USA, and it has a complex spatial configuration because of the patterns of surrounding land use, which are largely urbanized. In this case study, high priority communities for monitoring include coastal sage scrub (high endangerment, underrepresented within the reserve relative to the region, and moderately fragmented), freshwater wetlands, and coastal habitats (both have high fragmentation, moderate endangerment and representativeness, and low areal extent). This framework may be useful to other conservation planners and land managers for prioritizing the most significant and at-risk communities for monitoring.

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 %
Canada 3 3%
France 2 2%
Indonesia 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
Czechia 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Mexico 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 86 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 32 33%
Student > Master 15 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 14%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 4%
Other 14 14%
Unknown 11 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 34 35%
Environmental Science 33 34%
Engineering 4 4%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 2%
Unspecified 1 1%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 18 19%
Attention Score in Context

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 24 September 2020.
All research outputs
#8,535,472
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Management
#737
of 1,914 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,538
of 96,025 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Management
#7
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 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 1,914 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 96,025 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.