↓ Skip to main content

Ecological carryover effects complicate conservation

Overview of attention for article published in Ambio, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
105 Mendeley
Title
Ecological carryover effects complicate conservation
Published in
Ambio, February 2015
DOI 10.1007/s13280-015-0630-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Constance M. O’Connor, Steven J. Cooke

Abstract

Ecological carryover effects occur when an individual's previous history and experiences explain their current performance. It is becoming clear that ecological carryover effects are a common phenomenon across taxa, and have the potential to play an important role in governing individual fitness and population dynamics. Carryover effects may reduce the success of conservation efforts aimed at slowing or reversing biodiversity loss. Failure to consider carryover effects might lead to erroneous conclusions about the effectiveness of conservation measures. We suggest that carryover effects are considered explicitly in threat assessment and conservation planning, in order to understand the long-term consequences of stressors, target efforts more effectively, and ensure that the success or failure of conservation efforts is tracked more accurately. We encourage proactive research focused on the proximate mechanisms underlying carryover effects, so that predictive measures of carryover effects in wild populations can be developed and refined. Finally, we suggest that in some cases, positive carryover effects could be exploited for conservation benefit. We conclude that the failure to consider carryover effects in conservation science and practice may put imperiled populations at further risk.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 103 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 30%
Student > Master 16 15%
Researcher 14 13%
Student > Bachelor 11 10%
Other 4 4%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 19 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 46 44%
Environmental Science 29 28%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Engineering 2 2%
Mathematics 1 <1%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 20 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 04 November 2018.
All research outputs
#13,430,633
of 22,796,179 outputs
Outputs from Ambio
#1,340
of 1,625 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#177,076
of 358,560 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ambio
#22
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,796,179 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,625 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.2. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 358,560 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.