↓ 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
819 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1960 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 335 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 1,960 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 33 2%
United Kingdom 12 <1%
Brazil 10 <1%
France 8 <1%
Italy 6 <1%
Germany 6 <1%
Switzerland 5 <1%
Canada 5 <1%
Spain 5 <1%
Other 45 2%
Unknown 1825 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 459 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 440 22%
Researcher 332 17%
Student > Bachelor 249 13%
Unspecified 109 6%
Other 371 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1086 55%
Environmental Science 502 26%
Unspecified 166 8%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 52 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 33 2%
Other 121 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 914. 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 December 2018.
All research outputs
#3,894
of 12,382,688 outputs
Outputs from Science
#269
of 58,353 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67
of 227,751 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science
#1
of 825 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,382,688 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 58,353 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.0. 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 227,751 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 825 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.