↓ Skip to main content

Trade‐offs and efficiencies in optimal budget‐constrained multispecies corridor networks

Overview of attention for article published in Conservation Biology, September 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 (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
10 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
14 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
84 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
156 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
Trade‐offs and efficiencies in optimal budget‐constrained multispecies corridor networks
Published in
Conservation Biology, September 2016
DOI 10.1111/cobi.12814
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bistra Dilkina, Rachel Houtman, Carla P. Gomes, Claire A. Montgomery, Kevin S. McKelvey, Katherine Kendall, Tabitha A. Graves, Richard Bernstein, Michael K. Schwartz

Abstract

Conservation biologists recognize that a system of isolated protected areas will be necessary but insufficient to meet biodiversity objectives. Current approaches to connecting core conservation areas through corridors consider optimal corridor placement based on a single optimization goal: commonly, maximizing the movement for a target species across a network of protected areas. We show that designing corridors for single species based on purely ecological criteria leads to extremely expensive linkages that are suboptimal for multispecies connectivity objectives. Similarly, acquiring the least-expensive linkages leads to ecologically poor solutions. We developed algorithms for optimizing corridors for multispecies use given a specific budget. We applied our approach in western Montana to demonstrate how the solutions may be used to evaluate trade-offs in connectivity for 2 species with different habitat requirements, different core areas, and different conservation values under different budgets. We evaluated corridors that were optimal for each species individually and for both species jointly. Incorporating a budget constraint and jointly optimizing for both species resulted in corridors that were close to the individual species movement-potential optima but with substantial cost savings. Our approach produced corridors that were within 14% and 11% of the best possible corridor connectivity for grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) and wolverines (Gulo gulo), respectively, and saved 75% of the cost. Similarly, joint optimization under a combined budget resulted in improved connectivity for both species relative to splitting the budget in 2 to optimize for each species individually. Our results demonstrate economies of scale and complementarities conservation planners can achieve by optimizing corridor designs for financial costs and for multiple species connectivity jointly. We believe that our approach will facilitate corridor conservation by reducing acquisition costs and by allowing derived corridors to more closely reflect conservation priorities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 156 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 150 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 19%
Student > Master 30 19%
Researcher 28 18%
Student > Bachelor 12 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 7%
Other 19 12%
Unknown 26 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 57 37%
Environmental Science 41 26%
Engineering 8 5%
Computer Science 7 4%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Other 11 7%
Unknown 29 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 89. 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 14 February 2017.
All research outputs
#403,963
of 22,890,496 outputs
Outputs from Conservation Biology
#219
of 3,751 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,748
of 322,819 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Conservation Biology
#6
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,890,496 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,751 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 322,819 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.