↓ Skip to main content

Ecological Degradation in Protected Areas: The Case of Wolong Nature Reserve for Giant Pandas

Overview of attention for article published in Science, April 2001
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 (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
14 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
policy
3 policy sources
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Readers on

mendeley
608 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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.
Article details
Title
Ecological Degradation in Protected Areas: The Case of Wolong Nature Reserve for Giant Pandas
Published in
Science, April 2001
DOI 10.1126/science.1058104
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

It is generally perceived that biodiversity is better protected from human activities after an area is designated as a protected area. However, we found that this common perception was not true in Wolong Nature Reserve (southwestern China), which was established in 1975 as a "flagship" protected area for the world-renowned endangered giant pandas. Analyses of remote sensing data from pre- and post-establishment periods indicate that the reserve has become more fragmented and less suitable for giant panda habitation. The rate of loss of high-quality habitat after the reserve's establishment was much higher than before the reserve was created, and the fragmentation of high-quality habitat became far more severe. After the creation of the reserve, rates of habitat loss and fragmentation inside the reserve unexpectedly increased to levels that were similar to or higher than those outside the reserve, in contrast to the situation before the reserve was created.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 608 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 12 2%
Brazil 7 1%
China 5 <1%
United Kingdom 5 <1%
Mexico 4 <1%
Spain 3 <1%
Japan 2 <1%
Italy 2 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Other 15 2%
Unknown 551 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 125 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 114 19%
Student > Master 92 15%
Student > Bachelor 44 7%
Professor 32 5%
Other 112 18%
Unknown 89 15%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 194 32%
Environmental Science 184 30%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 34 6%
Social Sciences 31 5%
Unspecified 11 2%
Other 45 7%
Unknown 109 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 129. 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 13 June 2026.
All research outputs
#366,703
of 28,695,121 outputs
Outputs from Science
#9,287
of 87,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#167
of 49,630 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science
#10
of 291 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 28,695,121 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 87,235 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 66.8. 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 49,630 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 291 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 96% of its contemporaries.