| Title |
Integrating national Red Lists for prioritising conservation actions for European butterflies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Insect Conservation, January 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10841-019-00127-z |
| Authors |
Dirk Maes, Rudi Verovnik, Martin Wiemers, Dimitri Brosens, Stoyan Beshkov, Simona Bonelli, Jaroslaw Buszko, Lisette Cantú-Salazar, Louis-Francis Cassar, Sue Collins, Vlad Dincă, Milan Djuric, Goran Dušej, Hallvard Elven, Filip Franeta, Patricia Garcia-Pereira, Yurii Geryak, Philippe Goffart, Ádám Gór, Ulrich Hiermann, Helmut Höttinger, Peter Huemer, Predrag Jakšić, Eddie John, Henrik Kalivoda, Vassiliki Kati, Paul Kirkland, Benjamin Komac, Ádám Kőrösi, Anatolij Kulak, Mikko Kuussaari, Lionel L’Hoste, Suvad Lelo, Xavier Mestdagh, Nikola Micevski, Iva Mihoci, Sergiu Mihut, Yeray Monasterio-León, Dmitry V. Morgun, Miguel L. Munguira, Tomás Murray, Per Stadel Nielsen, Erling Ólafsson, Erki Õunap, Lazaros N. Pamperis, Alois Pavlíčko, Lars B. Pettersson, Serhiy Popov, Miloš Popović, Juha Pöyry, Mike Prentice, Lien Reyserhove, Nils Ryrholm, Martina Šašić, Nikolay Savenkov, Josef Settele, Marcin Sielezniew, Sergey Sinev, Constanti Stefanescu, Giedrius Švitra, Toomas Tammaru, Anu Tiitsaar, Elli Tzirkalli, Olga Tzortzakaki, Chris A. M. van Swaay, Arne Lykke Viborg, Irma Wynhoff, Konstantina Zografou, Martin S. Warren |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 6 | 26% |
| Spain | 1 | 4% |
| Belgium | 1 | 4% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 14 | 61% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 20 | 87% |
| Scientists | 2 | 9% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 85 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 16 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 11% |
| Other | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 13 | 15% |
| Unknown | 24 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 32 | 38% |
| Environmental Science | 20 | 24% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 2 | 2% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 1% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Unknown | 26 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 May 2021.
All research outputs
#1,647,037
of 25,998,826 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Insect Conservation
#60
of 797 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,227
of 453,007 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Insect Conservation
#4
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,998,826 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 797 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 453,007 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.