↓ Skip to main content

Apparent competition can compromise the safety of highly specific biocontrol agents

Overview of attention for article published in Ecology Letters, April 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
96 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
181 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
Apparent competition can compromise the safety of highly specific biocontrol agents
Published in
Ecology Letters, April 2008
DOI 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01184.x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luisa G. Carvalheiro, Yvonne M. Buckley, Rita Ventim, Simon V. Fowler, Jane Memmott

Abstract

Despite current concern about the safety of biological control of weeds, assessing the indirect impacts of introduced agents is not common practice. Using 17 replicate food webs, we demonstrate that the use of a highly host-plant specific weed biocontrol agent, recently introduced into Australia, is associated with declines of local insect communities. The agent shares natural enemies (predators and parasitoids) with seed herbivore species from native plants, so apparent competition is the most likely cause for these losses. Both species richness and abundance in insect communities (seed herbivores and their parasitoids) were negatively correlated with the abundance of the biocontrol agent. Local losses of up to 11 species (dipteran seed herbivores and parasitoids) took place as the biocontrol agent abundance increased. Ineffective biocontrol agents that remain highly abundant in the community are most likely to have persistent, indirect negative effects. Our findings suggest that more investment is required in pre-release studies on the effectiveness of biocontrol agents, as well as in post-release studies assessing indirect impacts, to avoid or minimize the release of potentially damaging species.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 181 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 4 2%
United States 3 2%
France 2 1%
United Kingdom 2 1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Other 8 4%
Unknown 157 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 49 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 18%
Student > Master 18 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 12 7%
Student > Bachelor 12 7%
Other 34 19%
Unknown 23 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 103 57%
Environmental Science 30 17%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 5 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 2%
Mathematics 2 1%
Other 6 3%
Unknown 31 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 06 March 2017.
All research outputs
#5,200,945
of 24,525,936 outputs
Outputs from Ecology Letters
#2,008
of 3,024 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,947
of 70,478 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ecology Letters
#4
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,525,936 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,024 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.4. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 70,478 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.