↓ Skip to main content

Effects of bird community dynamics on the seasonal distribution of cultural ecosystem services

Overview of attention for article published in Ambio, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 Mendeley
Title
Effects of bird community dynamics on the seasonal distribution of cultural ecosystem services
Published in
Ambio, June 2018
DOI 10.1007/s13280-018-1068-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rose A. Graves, Scott M. Pearson, Monica G. Turner

Abstract

Biodiversity-based cultural ecosystem services (CES), such as birdwatching, are strongly influenced by biotic community dynamics. However, CES models are largely static, relying on single estimates of species richness or land-use/land-cover proxies, and may be inadequate for landscape management of CES supply. Using bird survey data from the Appalachian Mountains (USA), we developed spatial-temporal models of five CES indicators (total bird species richness, and richness of migratory, infrequent, synanthrope, and resident species), reflecting variation in birdwatcher preferences. We analyzed seasonal shifts in birdwatching supply and how those shifts impacted public access to projected birdwatching hotspots. Landscape patterns of CES supply differed substantially among indicators, leading to opposing conclusions about locations of highest birdwatching supply. Total species richness hotspots seldom overlapped with hotspots of migratory or infrequent species. Public access to CES hotspots varied seasonally. Our study suggests that simple, static biodiversity metrics may overlook spatial dynamics important to CES users.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 77 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 16%
Researcher 12 16%
Student > Master 12 16%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 20 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 30%
Environmental Science 13 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 3 4%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 24 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 19 February 2019.
All research outputs
#6,744,004
of 25,376,589 outputs
Outputs from Ambio
#1,011
of 1,796 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,282
of 331,426 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ambio
#11
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,376,589 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,796 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.4. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 331,426 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.