↓ Skip to main content

The Precision Problem in Conservation and Restoration

Overview of attention for article published in Trends in Ecology & Evolution, November 2016
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 (91st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
3 policy sources
twitter
25 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
58 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
211 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
The Precision Problem in Conservation and Restoration
Published in
Trends in Ecology & Evolution, November 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.tree.2016.08.001
Pubmed ID
Authors

J. Kevin Hiers, Stephen T. Jackson, Richard J. Hobbs, Emily S. Bernhardt, Leonie E. Valentine

Abstract

Within the varied contexts of environmental policy, conservation of imperilled species populations, and restoration of damaged habitats, an emphasis on idealized optimal conditions has led to increasingly specific targets for management. Overly-precise conservation targets can reduce habitat variability at multiple scales, with unintended consequences for future ecological resilience. We describe this dilemma in the context of endangered species management, stream restoration, and climate-change adaptation. Inappropriate application of conservation targets can be expensive, with marginal conservation benefit. Reduced habitat variability can limit options for managers trying to balance competing objectives with limited resources. Conservation policies should embrace habitat variability, expand decision-space appropriately, and support adaptation to local circumstances to increase ecological resilience in a rapidly changing world.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 211 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Finland 2 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Singapore 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 204 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 44 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 40 19%
Student > Master 34 16%
Student > Bachelor 19 9%
Other 13 6%
Other 35 17%
Unknown 26 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 80 38%
Environmental Science 71 34%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 6 3%
Engineering 5 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 2%
Other 5 2%
Unknown 40 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 14 October 2019.
All research outputs
#997,936
of 17,362,547 outputs
Outputs from Trends in Ecology & Evolution
#671
of 2,669 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,659
of 272,087 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trends in Ecology & Evolution
#16
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,362,547 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 2,669 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 272,087 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 91% of its contemporaries.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.