↓ Skip to main content

Prioritizing management actions for invasive populations using cost, efficacy, demography and expert opinion for 14 plant species world‐wide

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Applied Ecology, February 2016
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 (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
19 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 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
Prioritizing management actions for invasive populations using cost, efficacy, demography and expert opinion for 14 plant species world‐wide
Published in
Journal of Applied Ecology, February 2016
DOI 10.1111/1365-2664.12592
Pubmed ID
Authors

Natalie Z. Kerr, Peter W.J. Baxter, Roberto Salguero‐Gómez, Glenda M. Wardle, Yvonne M. Buckley

Abstract

Management of invasive populations is typically investigated case-by-case. Comparative approaches have been applied to single aspects of management, such as demography, with cost or efficacy rarely incorporated.We present an analysis of the ranks of management actions for 14 species in five countries that extends beyond the use of demography alone to include multiple metrics for ranking management actions, which integrate cost, efficacy and demography (cost-effectiveness) and managers' expert opinion of ranks. We use content analysis of manager surveys to assess the multiple criteria managers use to rank management strategies.Analysis of the matrix models for managed populations showed that all management actions led to reductions in population growth rate (λ), with a median 48% reduction in λ across all management units; however, only 66% of the actions led to declining populations (λ < 1).Each management action ranked by cost-effectiveness and cost had a unique rank; however, elasticity ranks were often tied, providing less discrimination among management actions. Ranking management actions by cost alone aligned well with cost-effectiveness ranks and demographic elasticity ranks were also well aligned with cost-effectiveness. In contrast, efficacy ranks were aligned with managers' ranks and managers identified efficacy and demography as important. 80% of managers identified off-target effects of management as important, which was not captured using any of the other metrics. Synthesis and applications. A multidimensional view of the benefits and costs of management options provides a range of single and integrated metrics. These rankings, and the relationships between them, can be used to assess management actions for invasive plants. The integrated cost-effectiveness approach goes well 'beyond demography' and provides additional information for managers; however, cost-effectiveness needs to be augmented with information on off-target effects and social impacts of management in order to provide greater benefits for on-the-ground management.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Unknown 96 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 20%
Researcher 18 18%
Student > Bachelor 12 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 18 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 46 46%
Environmental Science 24 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 2%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 2%
Other 4 4%
Unknown 21 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 04 October 2016.
All research outputs
#3,184,629
of 25,351,219 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Applied Ecology
#1,701
of 4,013 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,080
of 305,588 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Applied Ecology
#42
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,351,219 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,013 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 305,588 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.