↓ Skip to main content

A new method for conservation planning for the persistence of multiple species

Overview of attention for article published in Ecology Letters, August 2006
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
102 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
432 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.
Title
A new method for conservation planning for the persistence of multiple species
Published in
Ecology Letters, August 2006
DOI 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00956.x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emily Nicholson, Michael I. Westphal, Karin Frank, Wayne A. Rochester, Robert L. Pressey, David B. Lindenmayer, Hugh P. Possingham

Abstract

Although the aim of conservation planning is the persistence of biodiversity, current methods trade-off ecological realism at a species level in favour of including multiple species and landscape features. For conservation planning to be relevant, the impact of landscape configuration on population processes and the viability of species needs to be considered. We present a novel method for selecting reserve systems that maximize persistence across multiple species, subject to a conservation budget. We use a spatially explicit metapopulation model to estimate extinction risk, a function of the ecology of the species and the amount, quality and configuration of habitat. We compare our new method with more traditional, area-based reserve selection methods, using a ten-species case study, and find that the expected loss of species is reduced 20-fold. Unlike previous methods, we avoid designating arbitrary weightings between reserve size and configuration; rather, our method is based on population processes and is grounded in ecological theory.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 432 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 19 4%
United States 11 3%
United Kingdom 4 <1%
Germany 4 <1%
Australia 4 <1%
India 4 <1%
Mexico 3 <1%
Finland 3 <1%
Spain 3 <1%
Other 18 4%
Unknown 359 83%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 127 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 92 21%
Student > Master 36 8%
Professor 35 8%
Other 33 8%
Other 109 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 212 49%
Environmental Science 155 36%
Unspecified 27 6%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 16 4%
Social Sciences 7 2%
Other 15 3%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 25 August 2006.
All research outputs
#7,720,716
of 12,352,699 outputs
Outputs from Ecology Letters
#1,699
of 1,977 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,422,029
of 11,749,284 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ecology Letters
#1,656
of 1,924 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,352,699 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,977 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.4. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% 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 11,749,284 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,924 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.