↓ Skip to main content

Finding our way: On the sharing and reuse of animal telemetry data in Australasia

Overview of attention for article published in Science of the Total Environment, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 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
Finding our way: On the sharing and reuse of animal telemetry data in Australasia
Published in
Science of the Total Environment, November 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.01.089
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hamish A. Campbell, Hawthorne L. Beyer, Todd E. Dennis, Ross G. Dwyer, James D. Forester, Yusuke Fukuda, Catherine Lynch, Mark A. Hindell, Norbert Menke, Juan M. Morales, Craig Richardson, Essie Rodgers, Graeme Taylor, Matt E. Watts, David A. Westcott

Abstract

The presence and movements of organisms both reflect and influence the distribution of ecological resources in space and time. The monitoring of animal movement by telemetry devices is being increasingly used to inform management of marine, freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems. Here, we brought together academics, and environmental managers to determine the extent of animal movement research in the Australasian region, and assess the opportunities and challenges in the sharing and reuse of these data. This working group was formed under the Australian Centre for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (ACEAS), whose overall aim was to facilitate trans-organisational and transdisciplinary synthesis. We discovered that between 2000 and 2012 at least 501 peer-reviewed scientific papers were published that report animal location data collected by telemetry devices from within the Australasian region. Collectively, this involved the capture and electronic tagging of 12 656 animals. The majority of studies were undertaken to address specific management questions; rarely were these data used beyond their original intent. We estimate that approximately half (~500) of all animal telemetry projects undertaken remained unpublished, a similar proportion were not discoverable via online resources, and less than 8.8% of all animals tagged and tracked had their data stored in a discoverable and accessible manner. Animal telemetry data contain a wealth of information about how animals and species interact with each other and the landscapes they inhabit. These data are expensive and difficult to collect and can reduce survivorship of the tagged individuals, which implies an ethical obligation to make the data available to the scientific community. This is the first study to quantify the gap between telemetry devices placed on animals and findings/data published, and presents methods for improvement. Instigation of these strategies will enhance the cost-effectiveness of the research and maximise its impact on the management of natural resources.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 2%
Belize 1 1%
South Africa 1 1%
Colombia 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
New Zealand 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 91 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 19%
Researcher 17 17%
Student > Master 12 12%
Other 9 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Other 21 21%
Unknown 14 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 31 31%
Environmental Science 24 24%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 4 4%
Engineering 3 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 3%
Other 16 16%
Unknown 18 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 28 July 2015.
All research outputs
#2,065,452
of 16,056,369 outputs
Outputs from Science of the Total Environment
#1,984
of 15,153 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,726
of 221,564 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science of the Total Environment
#29
of 184 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,056,369 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,153 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 221,564 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 184 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.