↓ Skip to main content

Reframing landscape fragmentation's effects on ecosystem services

Overview of attention for article published in Trends in Ecology & Evolution, February 2015
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 (95th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
55 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
364 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
972 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
Reframing landscape fragmentation's effects on ecosystem services
Published in
Trends in Ecology & Evolution, February 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.tree.2015.01.011
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew G.E. Mitchell, Andrés F. Suarez-Castro, Maria Martinez-Harms, Martine Maron, Clive McAlpine, Kevin J. Gaston, Kasper Johansen, Jonathan R. Rhodes

Abstract

Landscape structure and fragmentation have important effects on ecosystem services, with a common assumption being that fragmentation reduces service provision. This is based on fragmentation's expected effects on ecosystem service supply, but ignores how fragmentation influences the flow of services to people. Here we develop a new conceptual framework that explicitly considers the links between landscape fragmentation, the supply of services, and the flow of services to people. We argue that fragmentation's effects on ecosystem service flow can be positive or negative, and use our framework to construct testable hypotheses about the effects of fragmentation on final ecosystem service provision. Empirical efforts to apply and test this framework are critical to improving landscape management for multiple ecosystem services.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 55 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 972 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 13 1%
United States 10 1%
United Kingdom 5 <1%
Germany 4 <1%
France 3 <1%
Canada 3 <1%
Colombia 2 <1%
Argentina 2 <1%
Australia 2 <1%
Other 16 2%
Unknown 912 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 210 22%
Researcher 179 18%
Student > Master 148 15%
Student > Bachelor 70 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 52 5%
Other 158 16%
Unknown 155 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 328 34%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 322 33%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 40 4%
Engineering 12 1%
Social Sciences 11 1%
Other 48 5%
Unknown 211 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 46. 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 18 June 2020.
All research outputs
#911,250
of 25,519,924 outputs
Outputs from Trends in Ecology & Evolution
#545
of 3,211 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,177
of 269,645 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trends in Ecology & Evolution
#9
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,519,924 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 3,211 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 31.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 269,645 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 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 73% of its contemporaries.