↓ Skip to main content

Wildlife Connectivity Approaches and Best Practices in U.S. State Wildlife Action Plans

Overview of attention for article published in Conservation Biology, December 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
153 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
Wildlife Connectivity Approaches and Best Practices in U.S. State Wildlife Action Plans
Published in
Conservation Biology, December 2013
DOI 10.1111/cobi.12204
Pubmed ID
Authors

IARA LACHER, MARIT L. WILKERSON

Abstract

As habitat loss and fragmentation threaten biodiversity on large geographic scales, creating and maintaining connectivity of wildlife populations is an increasingly common conservation objective. To assess the progress and success of large-scale connectivity planning, conservation researchers need a set of plans that cover large geographic areas and can be analyzed as a single data set. The state wildlife action plans (SWAPs) fulfill these requirements. We examined 50 SWAPs to determine the extent to which wildlife connectivity planning, via linkages, is emphasized nationally. We defined linkage as connective land that enables wildlife movement. For our content analysis, we identified and quantified 6 keywords and 7 content criteria that ranged in specificity and were related to linkages for wide-ranging terrestrial vertebrates and examined relations between content criteria and statewide data on focal wide-ranging species, spending, revenue, and conserved land. Our results reflect nationwide disparities in linkage conservation priorities and highlight the continued need for wildlife linkage planning. Only 30% or less of the 50 SWAPs fulfilled highly specific content criteria (e.g., identifying geographic areas for linkage placement or management). We found positive correlations between our content criteria and statewide data on percent conserved land, total focal species, and spending on parks and recreation. We supplemented our content analysis with interviews with 17 conservation professionals to gain specific information about state-specific context and future directions of linkage conservation. Based on our results, relevant literature, and interview responses, we suggest the following best practices for wildlife linkage conservation plans: collect ecologically meaningful background data; be specific; establish community-wide partnerships; and incorporate sociopolitical and socioeconomic information.

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 153 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 3 2%
Portugal 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Other 2 1%
Unknown 138 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 40 26%
Student > Master 24 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 14%
Student > Bachelor 16 10%
Other 14 9%
Other 15 10%
Unknown 22 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 70 46%
Environmental Science 41 27%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Engineering 2 1%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 <1%
Other 10 7%
Unknown 26 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 29 January 2014.
All research outputs
#13,052,979
of 22,741,406 outputs
Outputs from Conservation Biology
#3,263
of 3,744 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,549
of 306,847 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Conservation Biology
#44
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,741,406 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,744 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.8. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 306,847 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.