↓ Skip to main content

Using food-web theory to conserve ecosystems

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Communications, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
49 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
88 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
334 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
Using food-web theory to conserve ecosystems
Published in
Nature Communications, January 2016
DOI 10.1038/ncomms10245
Pubmed ID
Authors

E. McDonald-Madden, R. Sabbadin, E. T. Game, P. W. J. Baxter, I. Chadès, H. P. Possingham

Abstract

Food-web theory can be a powerful guide to the management of complex ecosystems. However, we show that indices of species importance common in food-web and network theory can be a poor guide to ecosystem management, resulting in significantly more extinctions than necessary. We use Bayesian Networks and Constrained Combinatorial Optimization to find optimal management strategies for a wide range of real and hypothetical food webs. This Artificial Intelligence approach provides the ability to test the performance of any index for prioritizing species management in a network. While no single network theory index provides an appropriate guide to management for all food webs, a modified version of the Google PageRank algorithm reliably minimizes the chance and severity of negative outcomes. Our analysis shows that by prioritizing ecosystem management based on the network-wide impact of species protection rather than species loss, we can substantially improve conservation outcomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 49 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 334 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Japan 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Kenya 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Tanzania, United Republic of 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Other 5 1%
Unknown 316 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 70 21%
Researcher 58 17%
Student > Master 50 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 27 8%
Student > Bachelor 26 8%
Other 44 13%
Unknown 59 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 131 39%
Environmental Science 72 22%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 3%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 9 3%
Physics and Astronomy 7 2%
Other 31 9%
Unknown 74 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 21 January 2021.
All research outputs
#1,170,529
of 25,335,657 outputs
Outputs from Nature Communications
#18,221
of 56,229 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,664
of 406,448 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Communications
#245
of 733 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,335,657 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 56,229 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 55.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 406,448 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 733 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 66% of its contemporaries.