↓ Skip to main content

Multivariate forecasts of potential distributions of invasive plant species

Overview of attention for article published in Ecological Applications, March 2009
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
93 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
219 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
Multivariate forecasts of potential distributions of invasive plant species
Published in
Ecological Applications, March 2009
DOI 10.1890/07-2095.1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Inés Ibáñez, John A. Silander, Adam M. Wilson, Nancy LaFleur, Nobuyuki Tanaka, Ikutaro Tsuyama

Abstract

The fact that plant invasions are an ongoing process makes generalizations of invasive spread extraordinarily challenging. This is particularly true given the idiosyncratic nature of invasions, in which both historical and local conditions affect establishment success and hinder our ability to generate guidelines for early detection and eradication of invasive species. To overcome these limitations we have implemented a comprehensive approach that examines plant invasions at three spatial scales: regional, landscape, and local levels. At each scale, in combination with the others, we have evaluated the role of key environmental variables such as climate, landscape structure, habitat type, and canopy closure in the spread of three commonly found invasive woody plant species in New England, Berberis thunbergii, Celastrus orbiculatus, and Euonymus alatus. We developed a spatially explicit hierarchical Bayesian model that allowed us to take into account the ongoing nature of the spread of invasive species and to incorporate presence/absence data from the species' native ranges as well as from the invaded regions. Comparisons between predictions from climate-only models with those from the multiscale forecasts emphasize the importance of including landscape structure in our models of invasive species' potential distributions. In addition, predictions generated using only native range data performed substantially worse than those that incorporated data from the target range. This points out important limitations in extrapolating distributional ranges from one region to another.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 219 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 10 5%
Switzerland 3 1%
Germany 3 1%
Spain 3 1%
Canada 2 <1%
India 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Other 3 1%
Unknown 191 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 59 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 52 24%
Student > Master 27 12%
Student > Bachelor 15 7%
Professor 11 5%
Other 40 18%
Unknown 15 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 99 45%
Environmental Science 72 33%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 4 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 2%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 <1%
Other 12 5%
Unknown 26 12%
Attention Score in Context

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 22 April 2013.
All research outputs
#8,511,458
of 25,381,864 outputs
Outputs from Ecological Applications
#1,854
of 3,365 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,428
of 105,488 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ecological Applications
#14
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,381,864 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,365 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.3. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 105,488 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.