↓ Skip to main content

Banning Fisheries Discards Abruptly Has a Negative Impact on the Population Dynamics of Charismatic Marine Megafauna

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
24 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
117 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
Banning Fisheries Discards Abruptly Has a Negative Impact on the Population Dynamics of Charismatic Marine Megafauna
Published in
PLOS ONE, December 2015
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0144543
Pubmed ID
Authors

Esther N. Fondo, Milani Chaloupka, Johanna J. Heymans, Greg A. Skilleter

Abstract

Food subsidies have the potential to modify ecosystems and affect the provision of goods and services. Predictable Anthropogenic Food Subsidies (PAFS) modify ecosystems by altering ecological processes and food webs. The global concern over the effects of PAFS in ecosystems has led to development of environmental policies aimed at curbing the production or ultimately banning of PAFS. However, the effects of reducing or banning PAFS are not known. We explore the consequences of PAFS removal in a marine ecosystem under two scenarios: 1) gradual reduction, or 2) an abrupt ban, using a mass balance model to test these hypotheses-The reduction or loss of PAFS will: i) modify trophic levels and food webs through effects on foraging by opportunistic species, ii) increase the resilience of opportunistic species to food shortages, and iii) modify predator-prey interactions through shifts in prey consumption. We found that PAFS lower the trophic levels of opportunistic scavengers and increase their food pathways. Scavengers are able to switch prey when PAFS are reduced gradually but they decline when PAFS are abruptly banned. PAFS reduction to a certain minimal level causes a drop in the ecosystem's stability. We recommend gradual reduction of PAFS to a minimal level that would maintain the ecosystem's stability and allow species exploiting PAFS to habituate to the food subsidy reduction.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 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 117 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Jamaica 1 <1%
Unknown 112 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 23%
Researcher 23 20%
Student > Master 17 15%
Student > Bachelor 11 9%
Other 6 5%
Other 14 12%
Unknown 19 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 39 33%
Environmental Science 36 31%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 3 3%
Social Sciences 2 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 10 9%
Unknown 25 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 October 2016.
All research outputs
#1,867,100
of 25,452,734 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#22,840
of 221,718 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,577
of 395,856 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#502
of 5,068 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,452,734 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 221,718 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 395,856 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,068 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.