↓ Skip to main content

Accounting for Complementarity to Maximize Monitoring Power for Species Management

Overview of attention for article published in Conservation Biology, September 2013
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 (84th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 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
Accounting for Complementarity to Maximize Monitoring Power for Species Management
Published in
Conservation Biology, September 2013
DOI 10.1111/cobi.12092
Pubmed ID
Authors

AYESHA I. T. TULLOCH, IADINE CHADÈS, HUGH P. POSSINGHAM

Abstract

To choose among conservation actions that may benefit many species, managers need to monitor the consequences of those actions. Decisions about which species to monitor from a suite of different species being managed are hindered by natural variability in populations and uncertainty in several factors: the ability of the monitoring to detect a change, the likelihood of the management action being successful for a species, and how representative species are of one another. However, the literature provides little guidance about how to account for these uncertainties when deciding which species to monitor to determine whether the management actions are delivering outcomes. We devised an approach that applies decision science and selects the best complementary suite of species to monitor to meet specific conservation objectives. We created an index for indicator selection that accounts for the likelihood of successfully detecting a real trend due to a management action and whether that signal provides information about other species. We illustrated the benefit of our approach by analyzing a monitoring program for invasive predator management aimed at recovering 14 native Australian mammals of conservation concern. Our method selected the species that provided more monitoring power at lower cost relative to the current strategy and traditional approaches that consider only a subset of the important considerations. Our benefit function accounted for natural variability in species growth rates, uncertainty in the responses of species to the prescribed action, and how well species represent others. Monitoring programs that ignore uncertainty, likelihood of detecting change, and complementarity between species will be more costly and less efficient and may waste funding that could otherwise be used for management.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 3%
New Zealand 2 3%
Brazil 2 3%
United States 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Colombia 1 1%
Unknown 65 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 30%
Researcher 13 18%
Student > Master 12 16%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Other 8 11%
Other 11 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 36 49%
Environmental Science 30 41%
Unspecified 6 8%
Decision Sciences 1 1%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 1%
Other 0 0%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 11 January 2017.
All research outputs
#1,800,001
of 12,348,877 outputs
Outputs from Conservation Biology
#1,028
of 2,487 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,322
of 160,237 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Conservation Biology
#9
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,348,877 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,487 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 160,237 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 84% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.