↓ 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

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
124 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 124 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 118 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 31 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 22%
Student > Master 16 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Professor 6 5%
Other 16 13%
Unknown 21 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 63 51%
Environmental Science 25 20%
Mathematics 4 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 2%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 25 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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
#6,264,556
of 25,074,338 outputs
Outputs from Ecology Letters
#2,112
of 3,079 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,133
of 329,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ecology Letters
#19
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,074,338 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,079 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.3. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 329,900 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.