↓ Skip to main content

The effectiveness of surrogate taxa to conserve freshwater biodiversity

Overview of attention for article published in Conservation Biology, November 2017
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 (80th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
16 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 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
The effectiveness of surrogate taxa to conserve freshwater biodiversity
Published in
Conservation Biology, November 2017
DOI 10.1111/cobi.12967
Pubmed ID
Authors

David R. Stewart, Zachary E. Underwood, Frank J. Rahel, Annika W. Walters

Abstract

Establishing protected areas has long been an effective conservation strategy, and is often based on more readily surveyed species. The potential of any freshwater taxa to be a surrogate of other aquatic groups has not been fully explored. We compiled occurrence data on 72 species of freshwater fish, amphibians, mussels, and aquatic reptiles for the Great Plains, Wyoming. We used hierarchical Bayesian multi-species mixture models and MaxEnt models to describe species distributions, and program Zonation to identify conservation priority areas for each aquatic group. The landscape-scale factors that best characterized aquatic species distributions differed among groups. There was low agreement and congruence among taxa-specific conservation priorities (<20%), meaning that no surrogate priority areas would include or protect the best habitats of other aquatic taxa. We found that common, wide-ranging aquatic species were included in taxa-specific priority areas, but rare freshwater species were not included. Thus, the development of conservation priorities based on a single freshwater aquatic group would not protect all species in the other aquatic groups. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 2%
Unknown 63 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 28%
Researcher 14 22%
Student > Master 8 13%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 7 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 29 45%
Environmental Science 14 22%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Mathematics 1 2%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 11 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 26 June 2021.
All research outputs
#2,935,854
of 21,421,530 outputs
Outputs from Conservation Biology
#1,473
of 3,623 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,077
of 289,023 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Conservation Biology
#16
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,421,530 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,623 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 289,023 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.