| Title |
State-of-the-art practices in farmland biodiversity monitoring for North America and Europe
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Ambio, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13280-016-0799-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Felix Herzog, Janet Franklin |
| Abstract |
Policy makers and farmers need to know the status of farmland biodiversity in order to meet conservation goals and evaluate management options. Based on a review of 11 monitoring programs in Europe and North America and on related literature, we identify the design choices or attributes of a program that balance monitoring costs and usefulness for stakeholders. A useful program monitors habitats, vascular plants, and possibly faunal groups (ecosystem service providers, charismatic species) using a stratified random sample of the agricultural landscape, including marginal and intensive regions. The size of landscape samples varies with the grain of the agricultural landscape; for example, samples are smaller in Europe and larger in North America. Raw data are collected in a rolling survey, which distributes sampling over several years. Sufficient practical experience is now available to implement broad monitoring schemes on both continents. Technological developments in remote sensing, metagenomics, and social media may offer new opportunities for affordable farmland biodiversity monitoring and help to lower the overall costs of monitoring programs. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Denmark | 1 | 17% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 17% |
| Canada | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 3 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 3 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 2 | 2% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 106 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 23 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 18 | 17% |
| Unknown | 27 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 35 | 32% |
| Environmental Science | 19 | 17% |
| Engineering | 6 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 7% |
| Unknown | 34 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 27 February 2019.
All research outputs
#7,742,456
of 24,836,260 outputs
Outputs from Ambio
#1,076
of 1,768 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,315
of 360,441 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ambio
#11
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,836,260 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,768 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.9. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 360,441 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.