| Title |
The sensitivity of current and future forest managers to climate-induced changes in ecological processes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Ambio, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13280-015-0737-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rupert Seidl, Filip Aggestam, Werner Rammer, Kristina Blennow, Bernhard Wolfslehner |
| Abstract |
Climate vulnerability of managed forest ecosystems is not only determined by ecological processes but also influenced by the adaptive capacity of forest managers. To better understand adaptive behaviour, we conducted a questionnaire study among current and future forest managers (i.e. active managers and forestry students) in Austria. We found widespread belief in climate change (94.7 % of respondents), and no significant difference between current and future managers. Based on intended responses to climate-induced ecosystem changes, we distinguished four groups: highly sensitive managers (27.7 %), those mainly sensitive to changes in growth and regeneration processes (46.7 %), managers primarily sensitive to regeneration changes (11.2 %), and insensitive managers (14.4 %). Experiences and beliefs with regard to disturbance-related tree mortality were found to particularly influence a manager's sensitivity to climate change. Our findings underline the importance of the social dimension of climate change adaptation, and suggest potentially strong adaptive feedbacks between ecosystems and their managers. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 20% |
| Spain | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | 3% |
| Mexico | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 73 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 24 | 32% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Unknown | 21 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 28 | 37% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 13 | 17% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 27 | 36% |
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 11 June 2018.
All research outputs
#12,941,290
of 22,837,982 outputs
Outputs from Ambio
#1,306
of 1,629 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#177,764
of 390,617 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ambio
#17
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,837,982 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,629 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 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 390,617 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 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.