↓ Skip to main content

Landscape fragmentation and pollinator movement within agricultural environments: a modelling framework for exploring foraging and movement ecology

Overview of attention for article published in PeerJ, February 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 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
Landscape fragmentation and pollinator movement within agricultural environments: a modelling framework for exploring foraging and movement ecology
Published in
PeerJ, February 2014
DOI 10.7717/peerj.269
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sean A. Rands

Abstract

Pollinator decline has been linked to landscape change, through both habitat fragmentation and the loss of habitat suitable for the pollinators to live within. One method for exploring why landscape change should affect pollinator populations is to combine individual-level behavioural ecological techniques with larger-scale landscape ecology. A modelling framework is described that uses spatially-explicit individual-based models to explore the effects of individual behavioural rules within a landscape. The technique described gives a simple method for exploring the effects of the removal of wild corridors, and the creation of wild set-aside fields: interventions that are common to many national agricultural policies. The effects of these manipulations on central-place nesting pollinators are varied, and depend upon the behavioural rules that the pollinators are using to move through the environment. The value of this modelling framework is discussed, and future directions for exploration are identified.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 3%
Mexico 1 1%
Ghana 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Serbia 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Colombia 1 1%
Unknown 83 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 27%
Student > Master 18 19%
Researcher 12 13%
Student > Bachelor 12 13%
Unspecified 7 8%
Other 19 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 60 65%
Environmental Science 15 16%
Unspecified 12 13%
Mathematics 2 2%
Social Sciences 2 2%
Other 2 2%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 February 2014.
All research outputs
#2,419,373
of 9,110,691 outputs
Outputs from PeerJ
#2,480
of 4,356 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,072
of 176,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PeerJ
#77
of 109 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,110,691 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 59th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,356 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 176,827 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 109 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.