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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Tracking Cats: Problems with Placing Feline Carnivores on δ18O, δD Isoscapes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, September 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0024601 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stephanie J. Pietsch, Keith A. Hobson, Leonard I. Wassenaar, Thomas Tütken |
| Abstract |
Several felids are endangered and threatened by the illegal wildlife trade. Establishing geographic origin of tissues of endangered species is thus crucial for wildlife crime investigations and effective conservation strategies. As shown in other species, stable isotope analysis of hydrogen and oxygen in hair (δD(h), δ(18)O(h)) can be used as a tool for provenance determination. However, reliably predicting the spatial distribution of δD(h) and δ(18)O(h) requires confirmation from animal tissues of known origin and a detailed understanding of the isotopic routing of dietary nutrients into felid hair. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 196 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 3 | 2% |
| Portugal | 2 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 1% |
| United Arab Emirates | 1 | <1% |
| Turkey | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 4 | 2% |
| Unknown | 179 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 39 | 20% |
| Researcher | 38 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 31 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 7% |
| Other | 28 | 14% |
| Unknown | 32 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 101 | 52% |
| Environmental Science | 29 | 15% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 11 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 3% |
| Unknown | 42 | 21% |
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 01 October 2013.
All research outputs
#15,234,609
of 22,651,245 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#129,679
of 193,366 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,147
of 126,030 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,643
of 2,522 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,651,245 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,366 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 126,030 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2,522 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.