↓ Skip to main content

Designing nature reserves in the face of uncertainty

Overview of attention for article published in Ecology Letters, March 2011
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 (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
231 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
Designing nature reserves in the face of uncertainty
Published in
Ecology Letters, March 2011
DOI 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01608.x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael A. McCarthy, Colin J. Thompson, Alana L. Moore, Hugh P. Possingham

Abstract

Conservation reserves are a fundamental tool for managing biodiversity. The so-called SLOSS debate--should we have a Single Large Or Several Small reserves - is central to conservation theory. Population dynamic models suggest that the design that minimizes the risk of extinction of a species is case-specific, with the optimal number of reserves ranging between one and very many. Uncertainty is pervasive in ecology, but, the previous analyses of the SLOSS debate have not considered how uncertainty in the model of extinction risk might influence the optimal design. Herein, we show that when uncertainty is considered, the SLOSS problem is simplified and driven more by the aspirations of the manager than the population dynamics of the species. In this case, the optimal solution is to have in the order of twenty or fewer reserves for any species. This result shows counter-intuitively that considering uncertainty actually simplifies rather than complicates decisions about designing nature reserves.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 231 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 11 5%
United States 7 3%
Australia 3 1%
Germany 3 1%
United Kingdom 3 1%
Belgium 2 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Costa Rica 1 <1%
Other 6 3%
Unknown 193 84%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 67 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 46 20%
Student > Master 24 10%
Professor 16 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 16 7%
Other 47 20%
Unknown 15 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 115 50%
Environmental Science 75 32%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 4 2%
Computer Science 3 1%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 <1%
Other 6 3%
Unknown 26 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 11 December 2014.
All research outputs
#3,026,097
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Ecology Letters
#1,575
of 3,116 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,558
of 119,820 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ecology Letters
#13
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 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 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 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 119,820 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 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 53% of its contemporaries.