↓ Skip to main content

Shark baselines and the conservation role of remote coral reef ecosystems

Overview of attention for article published in Science Advances, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
97 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
googleplus
3 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
178 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
Shark baselines and the conservation role of remote coral reef ecosystems
Published in
Science Advances, March 2018
DOI 10.1126/sciadv.aaq0333
Pubmed ID
Authors

Francesco Ferretti, David Curnick, Keli Liu, Evgeny V. Romanov, Barbara A. Block

Abstract

Scientific monitoring has recorded only a recent fraction of the oceans' alteration history. This biases our understanding of marine ecosystems. Remote coral reef ecosystems are often considered pristine because of high shark abundance. However, given the long history and global nature of fishing, sharks' vulnerability, and the ecological consequences of shark declines, these states may not be natural. In the Chagos archipelago, one of the remotest coral reef systems on the planet, protected by a very large marine reserve, we integrated disparate fisheries and scientific survey data to reconstruct baselines and long-term population trajectories of two dominant sharks. In 2012, we estimated 571,310 gray reef and 31,693 silvertip sharks, about 79 and 7% of their baseline levels. These species were exploited longer and more intensively than previously thought and responded to fishing and protection with variable and compensatory population trajectories. Our approach highlights the value of integrative and historical analyses to evaluate large marine ecosystems currently considered pristine.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 97 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 178 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 178 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 18%
Researcher 27 15%
Student > Bachelor 26 15%
Student > Master 25 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 7%
Other 16 9%
Unknown 39 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 67 38%
Environmental Science 34 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 4%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 6 3%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 5 3%
Other 16 9%
Unknown 43 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 107. 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 25 June 2020.
All research outputs
#394,570
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Science Advances
#2,952
of 12,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,108
of 348,050 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science Advances
#66
of 235 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,215 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 120.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 348,050 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 235 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.