↓ Skip to main content

Planning for ex situ conservation in the face of uncertainty

Overview of attention for article published in Conservation Biology, December 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 (92nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
24 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
173 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
Planning for ex situ conservation in the face of uncertainty
Published in
Conservation Biology, December 2015
DOI 10.1111/cobi.12613
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stefano Canessa, Sarah J. Converse, Matt West, Nick Clemann, Graeme Gillespie, Michael McFadden, Aimee J. Silla, Kirsten M. Parris, Michael A. McCarthy

Abstract

Ex-situ conservation strategies for threatened species often require long-term commitment and financial investment to achieve management objectives. Here, we interpret the decision to adopt ex-situ management for a target species as the end point of several linked decisions. Logically, one must first decide which specific management actions are most likely to achieve the fundamental objectives of the recovery plan, with or without the use of ex-situ populations. Once this first decision has been made, one can decide whether to establish an ex-situ population, accounting for the probability of success in the initial phase, for example the probability of successful breeding in captivity. Approaching these decisions in the reverse order (attempting to establish an ex-situ population before its purpose is clearly defined) can lead to a poor allocation of resources. We use the recovery program for the threatened spotted tree frog (Litoria spenceri) in south-eastern Australia as an example to illustrate our decision framework. Across a range of possible management actions, only those including ex-situ management were expected to provide > 50% probability of species' persistence, but they came at a greater financial cost than in-situ-only alternatives. The expected benefits of ex-situ actions would also be offset by additional uncertainty and stochasticity associated with establishing and maintaining ex-situ populations. Naïvely implementing ex-situ conservation strategies can lead to inefficient management. We provide a framework to help managers explicitly evaluate objectives, management options and the probability of success prior to establishing a captive colony of any given species. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 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 173 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
United Kingdom 2 1%
Brazil 2 1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Unknown 163 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 17%
Student > Bachelor 30 17%
Researcher 29 17%
Student > Master 27 16%
Other 10 6%
Other 24 14%
Unknown 23 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 91 53%
Environmental Science 36 21%
Engineering 3 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Social Sciences 2 1%
Other 6 3%
Unknown 32 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 14 June 2017.
All research outputs
#1,275,108
of 21,301,416 outputs
Outputs from Conservation Biology
#825
of 3,633 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,076
of 253,335 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Conservation Biology
#22
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,301,416 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,633 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 253,335 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 56 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 62% of its contemporaries.