↓ Skip to main content

Increased Disease Calls for a Cost-Benefits Review of Marine Reserves

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, December 2012
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 (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
17 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 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
Increased Disease Calls for a Cost-Benefits Review of Marine Reserves
Published in
PLOS ONE, December 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0051615
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emma C. Wootton, Andrew P. Woolmer, Claire L. Vogan, Edward C. Pope, Kristina M. Hamilton, Andrew F. Rowley

Abstract

Marine reserves (or No-Take Zones) are implemented to protect species and habitats, with the aim of restoring a balanced ecosystem. Although the benefits of marine reserves are commonly monitored, there is a lack of insight into the potential detriments of such highly protected waters. High population densities attained within reserves may induce negative impacts such as unfavourable trophic cascades and disease outbreaks. Hence, we investigated the health of lobster populations in the UK's Marine Conservation Zone (MCZ) at Lundy Island. Comparisons were made between the fished, Refuge Zone (RZ) and the un-fished, No-Take Zone (NTZ; marine reserve). We show ostensibly positive effects such as increased lobster abundance and size within the NTZ; however, we also demonstrate apparent negative effects such as increased injury and shell disease. Our findings suggest that robust cost-benefit analyses of marine reserves could improve marine reserve efficacy and subsequent management strategies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 5%
Mexico 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 69 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 23%
Student > Master 14 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 13%
Student > Bachelor 10 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 8 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 37%
Environmental Science 27 36%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 4 5%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 3%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 10 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. 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 18 February 2020.
All research outputs
#1,202,001
of 22,689,790 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#15,997
of 193,655 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,745
of 278,718 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#335
of 4,853 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,689,790 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 193,655 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 278,718 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 4,853 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 93% of its contemporaries.