↓ Skip to main content

Prioritizing Urban Habitats for Connectivity Conservation: Integrating Centrality and Ecological Metrics

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Management, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
Title
Prioritizing Urban Habitats for Connectivity Conservation: Integrating Centrality and Ecological Metrics
Published in
Environmental Management, April 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00267-015-0520-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fatemeh Poodat, Colin Arrowsmith, David Fraser, Ascelin Gordon

Abstract

Connectivity among fragmented areas of habitat has long been acknowledged as important for the viability of biological conservation, especially within highly modified landscapes. Identifying important habitat patches in ecological connectivity is a priority for many conservation strategies, and the application of 'graph theory' has been shown to provide useful information on connectivity. Despite the large number of metrics for connectivity derived from graph theory, only a small number have been compared in terms of the importance they assign to nodes in a network. This paper presents a study that aims to define a new set of metrics and compares these with traditional graph-based metrics, used in the prioritization of habitat patches for ecological connectivity. The metrics measured consist of "topological" metrics, "ecological metrics," and "integrated metrics," Integrated metrics are a combination of topological and ecological metrics. Eight metrics were applied to the habitat network for the fat-tailed dunnart within Greater Melbourne, Australia. A non-directional network was developed in which nodes were linked to adjacent nodes. These links were then weighted by the effective distance between patches. By applying each of the eight metrics for the study network, nodes were ranked according to their contribution to the overall network connectivity. The structured comparison revealed the similarity and differences in the way the habitat for the fat-tailed dunnart was ranked based on different classes of metrics. Due to the differences in the way the metrics operate, a suitable metric should be chosen that best meets the objectives established by the decision maker.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Mexico 1 2%
Australia 1 2%
Unknown 56 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 13%
Student > Master 8 13%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Other 5 8%
Other 11 18%
Unknown 11 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 33%
Environmental Science 14 23%
Social Sciences 4 7%
Engineering 3 5%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 17 28%
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 17 March 2016.
All research outputs
#14,278,325
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Management
#1,291
of 1,914 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,815
of 278,549 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Management
#23
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 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 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 278,549 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 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 55% of its contemporaries.