↓ Skip to main content

Decline of traditional rice farming constrains the recovery of the endangered Asian crested ibis (Nipponia nippon)

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
Title
Decline of traditional rice farming constrains the recovery of the endangered Asian crested ibis (Nipponia nippon)
Published in
Ambio, April 2015
DOI 10.1007/s13280-015-0649-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yiwen Sun, Tiejun Wang, Andrew K. Skidmore, Qi Wang, Changqing Ding

Abstract

Traditional agriculture benefits a rich diversity of plants and animals. The winter-flooded rice fields in the Qinling Mountains, China, are the last refuge for the endangered Asian crested ibis (Nipponia nippon), and intensive efforts have been made to protect this anthropogenic habitat. Analyses of multi-temporal satellite data indicate that winter-flooded rice fields have been continuously reduced across the current range of crested ibis during the past two decades. The rate of loss of these fields in the core-protected areas has unexpectedly increased to a higher level than that in non-protected areas in the past decade. The best fit (R (2) = 0.87) numerical response model of the crested ibis population shows that a reduction of winter-flooded rice fields decreases population growth and predicts that the population growth will be constrained by the decline of traditional winter-flooded rice fields in the coming decades. Our findings suggest that the decline of traditional rice farming is likely to continue to pose a threat to the long-term survival and recovery of the crested ibis population in China.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 20%
Student > Master 4 16%
Researcher 3 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 8%
Lecturer 1 4%
Other 4 16%
Unknown 6 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 7 28%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 16%
Psychology 2 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 4%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 8 32%
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 01 October 2015.
All research outputs
#14,239,245
of 22,829,683 outputs
Outputs from Ambio
#1,384
of 1,628 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#139,707
of 264,862 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ambio
#7
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,683 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,628 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 264,862 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.