↓ Skip to main content

Uncertainty in identifying local extinctions: the distribution of missing data and its effects on biodiversity measures

Overview of attention for article published in Biology Letters, March 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 (96th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
twitter
27 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 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
Uncertainty in identifying local extinctions: the distribution of missing data and its effects on biodiversity measures
Published in
Biology Letters, March 2016
DOI 10.1098/rsbl.2015.0824
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elizabeth H. Boakes, Richard A. Fuller, Philip J. K. McGowan, Georgina M. Mace

Abstract

Identifying local extinctions is integral to estimating species richness and geographic range changes and informing extinction risk assessments. However, the species occurrence records underpinning these estimates are frequently compromised by a lack of recorded species absences making it impossible to distinguish between local extinction and lack of survey effort-for a rigorously compiled database of European and Asian Galliformes, approximately 40% of half-degree cells contain records from before but not after 1980. We investigate the distribution of these cells, finding differences between the Palaearctic (forests, low mean human influence index (HII), outside protected areas (PAs)) and Indo-Malaya (grassland, high mean HII, outside PAs). Such cells also occur more in less peaceful countries. We show that different interpretations of these cells can lead to large over/under-estimations of species richness and extent of occurrences, potentially misleading prioritization and extinction risk assessment schemes. To avoid mistakes, local extinctions inferred from sightings records need to account for the history of survey effort in a locality.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 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 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 1%
Finland 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Japan 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 80 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 26 31%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 16%
Student > Master 12 14%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Other 6 7%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 10 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 45 53%
Environmental Science 22 26%
Arts and Humanities 2 2%
Unspecified 1 1%
Mathematics 1 1%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 11 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 61. 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 08 August 2017.
All research outputs
#679,306
of 24,945,754 outputs
Outputs from Biology Letters
#700
of 3,385 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,928
of 304,502 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biology Letters
#17
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,945,754 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,385 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 59.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 304,502 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.