↓ Skip to main content

Sources and Sinks of Diversification and Conservation Priorities for the Mexican Tropical Dry Forest

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, October 2008
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 (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 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
Sources and Sinks of Diversification and Conservation Priorities for the Mexican Tropical Dry Forest
Published in
PLOS ONE, October 2008
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0003436
Pubmed ID
Authors

Judith X. Becerra, D. Lawrence Venable

Abstract

Elucidating the geographical history of diversification is critical for inferring where future diversification may occur and thus could be a valuable aid in determining conservation priorities. However, it has been difficult to recognize areas with a higher likelihood of promoting diversification. We reconstructed centres of origin of lineages and identified areas in the Mexican tropical dry forest that have been important centres of diversification (sources) and areas where species are maintained but where diversification is less likely to occur (diversity sinks). We used a molecular phylogeny of the genus Bursera, a dominant member of the forest, along with information on current species distributions. Results indicate that vast areas of the forest have historically functioned as diversity sinks, generating few or no extant Bursera lineages. Only a few areas have functioned as major engines of diversification. Long-term preservation of biodiversity may be promoted by incorporation of such knowledge in decision-making.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 3 3%
Canada 2 2%
Ecuador 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Finland 1 1%
Unknown 81 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 20%
Researcher 16 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Other 21 24%
Unknown 12 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 52 58%
Environmental Science 13 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 1%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 12 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 06 March 2010.
All research outputs
#2,254,954
of 22,653,392 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#28,841
of 193,422 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,565
of 90,604 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#63
of 382 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,653,392 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,422 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 90,604 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 382 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.