↓ Skip to main content

Assessing Landscape Constraints on Species Abundance: Does the Neighborhood Limit Species Response to Local Habitat Conservation Programs?

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 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
Assessing Landscape Constraints on Species Abundance: Does the Neighborhood Limit Species Response to Local Habitat Conservation Programs?
Published in
PLOS ONE, June 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0099339
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christopher F. Jorgensen, Larkin A. Powell, Jeffery J. Lusk, Andrew A. Bishop, Joseph J. Fontaine

Abstract

Landscapes in agricultural systems continue to undergo significant change, and the loss of biodiversity is an ever-increasing threat. Although habitat restoration is beneficial, management actions do not always result in the desired outcome. Managers must understand why management actions fail; yet, past studies have focused on assessing habitat attributes at a single spatial scale, and often fail to consider the importance of ecological mechanisms that act across spatial scales. We located survey sites across southern Nebraska, USA and conducted point counts to estimate Ring-necked Pheasant abundance, an economically important species to the region, while simultaneously quantifying landscape effects using a geographic information system. To identify suitable areas for allocating limited management resources, we assessed land cover relationships to our counts using a Bayesian binomial-Poisson hierarchical model to construct predictive Species Distribution Models of relative abundance. Our results indicated that landscape scale land cover variables severely constrained or, alternatively, facilitated the positive effects of local land management for Ring-necked Pheasants.

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 %
Spain 1 2%
Latvia 1 2%
France 1 2%
Unknown 61 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 27%
Researcher 11 17%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 5%
Student > Bachelor 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 9 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 33 52%
Environmental Science 14 22%
Computer Science 2 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 3%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 2%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 10 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 12 June 2014.
All research outputs
#18,262,603
of 20,585,116 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#156,361
of 177,676 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#172,195
of 204,422 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,689
of 3,034 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,585,116 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 177,676 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 204,422 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,034 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.