↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of Potential Responses to Invasive Non‐Native Species with Structured Decision Making

Overview of attention for article published in Conservation Biology, April 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Readers on

mendeley
127 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
Evaluation of Potential Responses to Invasive Non‐Native Species with Structured Decision Making
Published in
Conservation Biology, April 2012
DOI 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01843.x
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

In managing invasions and colonizations of non-native species, eradication or control efforts must proceed quickly. There are 2 challenges in taking such quick action. First, managers frequently have to choose among complex and often competing environmental, social, and economic objectives. Second, the effects are highly uncertain. We applied participatory structured decision making (SDM) to develop a response plan for the recent invasion of non-native myrtle rust (Uredo rangelii) in Australia. Structured decision making breaks a complex decision process into 5 steps: identify problems (i.e., decisions to be made), formulate objectives, develop management alternatives, estimate consequences of implementing those alternatives, and select preferred alternatives by evaluating trade-offs among alternatives. To determine the preferred mid- to long-term alternatives to managing the rust, we conducted 2 participatory workshops and 18 interviews with individuals to elicit stakeholders' key concerns and convert them into 5 objectives (minimize management cost, minimize economic cost to industry, minimize effects on natural ecosystems and landscape amenities, and minimize environmental effects associated with use of fungicide) and to identify the 5 management alternatives (full eradication, partial eradication, slow spread, live with it [i.e., major effort invested in mitigation of effects], and do nothing). We also developed decision trees to graphically represent the essence of the decision by displaying the relations between uncertainties and decision points. In the short term or before local expansion of myrtle rust, the do-nothing alternative was not preferred, but an eradication alternative was only recommended if the probability of eradication exceeded about 40%. After the expansion of myrtle rust, the slow-the-spread alternative was preferred regardless of which of the short-term management alternatives was selected at an earlier stage. The participatory SDM approach effectively resulted in informed and transparent response plans that incorporated multiple objectives in decision-making processes under high uncertainty.

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.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 7 6%
United Kingdom 2 2%
Brazil 2 2%
Mexico 1 <1%
Unknown 115 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 29 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 20%
Student > Master 18 14%
Student > Bachelor 12 9%
Other 9 7%
Other 18 14%
Unknown 16 13%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 42 33%
Environmental Science 37 29%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 2%
Other 13 10%
Unknown 25 20%
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 03 February 2016.
All research outputs
#20,620,798
of 32,780,952 outputs
Outputs from Conservation Biology
#4,420
of 5,004 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#134,262
of 203,688 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Conservation Biology
#23
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,780,952 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,004 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.3. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 203,688 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.