↓ Skip to main content

Status and Ecological Effects of the World's Largest Carnivores

Overview of attention for article published in Science, January 2014
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 (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
1106 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
2363 Mendeley
citeulike
6 CiteULike
Title
Status and Ecological Effects of the World's Largest Carnivores
Published in
Science, January 2014
DOI 10.1126/science.1241484
Pubmed ID
Authors

W. J. Ripple, J. A. Estes, R. L. Beschta, C. C. Wilmers, E. G. Ritchie, M. Hebblewhite, J. Berger, B. Elmhagen, M. Letnic, M. P. Nelson, O. J. Schmitz, D. W. Smith, A. D. Wallach, A. J. Wirsing

Abstract

Large carnivores face serious threats and are experiencing massive declines in their populations and geographic ranges around the world. We highlight how these threats have affected the conservation status and ecological functioning of the 31 largest mammalian carnivores on Earth. Consistent with theory, empirical studies increasingly show that large carnivores have substantial effects on the structure and function of diverse ecosystems. Significant cascading trophic interactions, mediated by their prey or sympatric mesopredators, arise when some of these carnivores are extirpated from or repatriated to ecosystems. Unexpected effects of trophic cascades on various taxa and processes include changes to bird, mammal, invertebrate, and herpetofauna abundance or richness; subsidies to scavengers; altered disease dynamics; carbon sequestration; modified stream morphology; and crop damage. Promoting tolerance and coexistence with large carnivores is a crucial societal challenge that will ultimately determine the fate of Earth's largest carnivores and all that depends upon them, including humans.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 322 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 2,363 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 31 1%
United Kingdom 12 <1%
Brazil 11 <1%
France 8 <1%
Italy 6 <1%
Canada 6 <1%
Switzerland 5 <1%
Spain 4 <1%
Germany 4 <1%
Other 42 2%
Unknown 2234 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 531 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 492 21%
Researcher 388 16%
Student > Bachelor 315 13%
Student > Postgraduate 100 4%
Other 350 15%
Unknown 187 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1230 52%
Environmental Science 606 26%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 61 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 49 2%
Social Sciences 34 1%
Other 124 5%
Unknown 259 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 926. 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 27 December 2019.
All research outputs
#5,357
of 14,330,530 outputs
Outputs from Science
#383
of 64,213 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71
of 258,899 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science
#1
of 824 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,330,530 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 64,213 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 46.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 258,899 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 824 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 99% of its contemporaries.