↓ Skip to main content

Challenges in Identifying Sites Climatically Matched to the Native Ranges of Animal Invaders

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, February 2011
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 (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
118 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
317 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.
Title
Challenges in Identifying Sites Climatically Matched to the Native Ranges of Animal Invaders
Published in
PLOS ONE, February 2011
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0014670
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gordon H. Rodda, Catherine S. Jarnevich, Robert N. Reed

Abstract

Species distribution models are often used to characterize a species' native range climate, so as to identify sites elsewhere in the world that may be climatically similar and therefore at risk of invasion by the species. This endeavor provoked intense public controversy over recent attempts to model areas at risk of invasion by the Indian Python (Python molurus). We evaluated a number of MaxEnt models on this species to assess MaxEnt's utility for vertebrate climate matching.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 317 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 16 5%
Mexico 5 2%
Brazil 5 2%
Germany 4 1%
United Kingdom 4 1%
Colombia 3 <1%
Australia 2 <1%
South Africa 2 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Other 7 2%
Unknown 268 85%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 71 22%
Student > Master 63 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 58 18%
Student > Bachelor 25 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 6%
Other 46 15%
Unknown 36 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 185 58%
Environmental Science 68 21%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 11 3%
Social Sciences 4 1%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 <1%
Other 11 3%
Unknown 36 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 December 2016.
All research outputs
#1,254,387
of 22,651,245 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#16,636
of 193,366 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,865
of 183,355 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#119
of 1,258 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,651,245 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,366 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 183,355 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,258 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 90% of its contemporaries.