↓ Skip to main content

Differences among Major Taxa in the Extent of Ecological Knowledge across Four Major Ecosystems

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, November 2011
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 (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
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
Differences among Major Taxa in the Extent of Ecological Knowledge across Four Major Ecosystems
Published in
PLOS ONE, November 2011
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0026556
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rebecca Fisher, Nancy Knowlton, Russell E. Brainard, M. Julian Caley

Abstract

Existing knowledge shapes our understanding of ecosystems and is critical for ecosystem-based management of the world's natural resources. Typically this knowledge is biased among taxa, with some taxa far better studied than others, but the extent of this bias is poorly known. In conjunction with the publically available World Registry of Marine Species database (WoRMS) and one of the world's premier electronic scientific literature databases (Web of Science®), a text mining approach is used to examine the distribution of existing ecological knowledge among taxa in coral reef, mangrove, seagrass and kelp bed ecosystems. We found that for each of these ecosystems, most research has been limited to a few groups of organisms. While this bias clearly reflects the perceived importance of some taxa as commercially or ecologically valuable, the relative lack of research of other taxonomic groups highlights the problem that some key taxa and associated ecosystem processes they affect may be poorly understood or completely ignored. The approach outlined here could be applied to any type of ecosystem for analyzing previous research effort and identifying knowledge gaps in order to improve ecosystem-based conservation and management.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 4%
Mexico 2 2%
France 2 2%
Germany 1 1%
Turkey 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Portugal 1 1%
New Zealand 1 1%
Other 3 3%
Unknown 82 83%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 23 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 22%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Student > Master 7 7%
Other 5 5%
Other 19 19%
Unknown 15 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 45 45%
Environmental Science 17 17%
Computer Science 7 7%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 4 4%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 15 15%
Attention Score in Context

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 17 April 2013.
All research outputs
#3,209,276
of 22,656,971 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#42,205
of 193,432 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,293
of 141,797 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#479
of 2,655 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,656,971 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,432 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 78% 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 141,797 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2,655 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.