↓ Skip to main content

Effects of wind energy generation and white-nose syndrome on the viability of the Indiana bat

Overview of attention for article published in PeerJ, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
20 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 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
Effects of wind energy generation and white-nose syndrome on the viability of the Indiana bat
Published in
PeerJ, December 2016
DOI 10.7717/peerj.2830
Pubmed ID
Authors

Richard A. Erickson, Wayne E. Thogmartin, Jay E. Diffendorfer, Robin E. Russell, Jennifer A. Szymanski

Abstract

Wind energy generation holds the potential to adversely affect wildlife populations. Species-wide effects are difficult to study and few, if any, studies examine effects of wind energy generation on any species across its entire range. One species that may be affected by wind energy generation is the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), which is found in the eastern and midwestern United States. In addition to mortality from wind energy generation, the species also faces range-wide threats from the emerging infectious fungal disease, white-nose syndrome (WNS). White-nose syndrome, caused by Pseudogymnoascus destructans, disturbs hibernating bats leading to high levels of mortality. We used a spatially explicit full-annual-cycle model to investigate how wind turbine mortality and WNS may singly and then together affect population dynamics of this species. In the simulation, wind turbine mortality impacted the metapopulation dynamics of the species by causing extirpation of some of the smaller winter colonies. In general, effects of wind turbines were localized and focused on specific spatial subpopulations. Conversely, WNS had a depressive effect on the species across its range. Wind turbine mortality interacted with WNS and together these stressors had a larger impact than would be expected from either alone, principally because these stressors together act to reduce species abundance across the spectrum of population sizes. Our findings illustrate the importance of not only prioritizing the protection of large winter colonies as is currently done, but also of protecting metapopulation dynamics and migratory connectivity.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 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 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 53 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 28%
Student > Master 10 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 17%
Other 4 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 11 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 26 48%
Environmental Science 9 17%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 4%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Mathematics 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 12 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 39. 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 19 October 2020.
All research outputs
#719,698
of 19,206,351 outputs
Outputs from PeerJ
#843
of 11,275 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,328
of 404,122 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PeerJ
#19
of 275 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,206,351 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,275 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 404,122 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 275 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.