↓ Skip to main content

Understanding and planning ecological restoration of plant–pollinator networks

Overview of attention for article published in Ecology Letters, January 2012
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 (82nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
137 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
487 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
Understanding and planning ecological restoration of plant–pollinator networks
Published in
Ecology Letters, January 2012
DOI 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2012.01740.x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mariano Devoto, Sallie Bailey, Paul Craze, Jane Memmott

Abstract

Ecology Letters (2012) ABSTRACT: Theory developed from studying changes in the structure and function of communities during natural or managed succession can guide the restoration of particular communities. We constructed 30 quantitative plant-flower visitor networks along a managed successional gradient to identify the main drivers of change in network structure. We then applied two alternative restoration strategies in silico (restoring for functional complementarity or redundancy) to data from our early successional plots to examine whether different strategies affected the restoration trajectories. Changes in network structure were explained by a combination of age, tree density and variation in tree diameter, even when variance explained by undergrowth structure was accounted for first. A combination of field data, a network approach and numerical simulations helped to identify which species should be given restoration priority in the context of different restoration targets. This combined approach provides a powerful tool for directing management decisions, particularly when management seeks to restore or conserve ecosystem function.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 487 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 9 2%
Brazil 8 2%
United Kingdom 7 1%
Germany 3 <1%
Mexico 3 <1%
Belgium 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
France 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Other 8 2%
Unknown 443 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 102 21%
Student > Master 90 18%
Researcher 88 18%
Student > Bachelor 41 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 23 5%
Other 74 15%
Unknown 69 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 262 54%
Environmental Science 112 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 1%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 6 1%
Mathematics 2 <1%
Other 10 2%
Unknown 88 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 April 2013.
All research outputs
#5,328,985
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Ecology Letters
#2,031
of 3,116 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,091
of 251,525 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ecology Letters
#14
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,116 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.3. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 251,525 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 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 58% of its contemporaries.