| Title |
Genetic differences in the response to landscape fragmentation by a habitat generalist, the bobcat, and a habitat specialist, the ocelot
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Conservation Genetics, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10592-016-0846-1 |
| Authors |
Jan E. Janecka, Michael E. Tewes, Imogene A. Davis, Aaron M. Haines, Arturo Caso, Terry L. Blankenship, Rodney L. Honeycutt |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 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 States | 9 | 30% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 10% |
| Denmark | 1 | 3% |
| Pakistan | 1 | 3% |
| Colombia | 1 | 3% |
| Dominican Republic | 1 | 3% |
| Curaçao | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 13 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 18 | 60% |
| Scientists | 11 | 37% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 145 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 142 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 35 | 24% |
| Student > Master | 29 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 16 | 11% |
| Unknown | 21 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 64 | 44% |
| Environmental Science | 29 | 20% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 15 | 10% |
| Engineering | 2 | 1% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 7 | 5% |
| Unknown | 27 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 28 December 2016.
All research outputs
#2,059,889
of 25,750,437 outputs
Outputs from Conservation Genetics
#95
of 1,153 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,354
of 313,398 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Conservation Genetics
#3
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,750,437 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,153 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 313,398 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.