↓ Skip to main content

When can the cause of a population decline be determined?

Overview of attention for article published in Ecology Letters, September 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 (81st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
15 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 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
When can the cause of a population decline be determined?
Published in
Ecology Letters, September 2016
DOI 10.1111/ele.12671
Pubmed ID
Authors

Trevor J. Hefley, Mevin B. Hooten, John M. Drake, Robin E. Russell, Daniel P. Walsh

Abstract

Inferring the factors responsible for declines in abundance is a prerequisite to preventing the extinction of wild populations. Many of the policies and programmes intended to prevent extinctions operate on the assumption that the factors driving the decline of a population can be determined. Exogenous factors that cause declines in abundance can be statistically confounded with endogenous factors such as density dependence. To demonstrate the potential for confounding, we used an experiment where replicated populations were driven to extinction by gradually manipulating habitat quality. In many of the replicated populations, habitat quality and density dependence were confounded, which obscured causal inference. Our results show that confounding is likely to occur when the exogenous factors that are driving the decline change gradually over time. Our study has direct implications for wild populations, because many factors that could drive a population to extinction change gradually through time.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Finland 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
Japan 1 1%
Estonia 1 1%
Unknown 86 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 26%
Researcher 22 24%
Student > Master 11 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 9%
Unspecified 7 8%
Other 20 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 52 57%
Environmental Science 21 23%
Unspecified 11 12%
Mathematics 4 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 2 2%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 August 2017.
All research outputs
#1,811,198
of 13,182,016 outputs
Outputs from Ecology Letters
#1,013
of 2,037 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,772
of 265,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ecology Letters
#24
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,182,016 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,037 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 265,554 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.