↓ Skip to main content

Catastrophic Collapse Can Occur without Early Warning: Examples of Silent Catastrophes in Structured Ecological Models

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, April 2013
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 (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
98 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
169 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
Catastrophic Collapse Can Occur without Early Warning: Examples of Silent Catastrophes in Structured Ecological Models
Published in
PLOS ONE, April 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0062033
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maarten C. Boerlijst, Thomas Oudman, André M. de Roos

Abstract

Catastrophic and sudden collapses of ecosystems are sometimes preceded by early warning signals that potentially could be used to predict and prevent a forthcoming catastrophe. Universality of these early warning signals has been proposed, but no formal proof has been provided. Here, we show that in relatively simple ecological models the most commonly used early warning signals for a catastrophic collapse can be silent. We underpin the mathematical reason for this phenomenon, which involves the direction of the eigenvectors of the system. Our results demonstrate that claims on the universality of early warning signals are not correct, and that catastrophic collapses can occur without prior warning. In order to correctly predict a collapse and determine whether early warning signals precede the collapse, detailed knowledge of the mathematical structure of the approaching bifurcation is necessary. Unfortunately, such knowledge is often only obtained after the collapse has already occurred.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 169 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 7 4%
United Kingdom 3 2%
Brazil 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Taiwan 1 <1%
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of 1 <1%
Luxembourg 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 152 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 46 27%
Researcher 37 22%
Student > Master 19 11%
Student > Bachelor 13 8%
Professor 6 4%
Other 24 14%
Unknown 24 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 45 27%
Environmental Science 40 24%
Engineering 10 6%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 8 5%
Physics and Astronomy 7 4%
Other 25 15%
Unknown 34 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 07 April 2015.
All research outputs
#1,545,266
of 23,045,021 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#19,922
of 196,522 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,095
of 200,417 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#466
of 5,227 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,045,021 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 196,522 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 200,417 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,227 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.