↓ Skip to main content

Habitat Fragmentation, Variable Edge Effects, and the Landscape-Divergence Hypothesis

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, October 2007
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
339 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1068 Mendeley
connotea
1 Connotea
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
Habitat Fragmentation, Variable Edge Effects, and the Landscape-Divergence Hypothesis
Published in
PLOS ONE, October 2007
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0001017
Pubmed ID
Authors

William F. Laurance, Henrique E. M. Nascimento, Susan G. Laurance, Ana Andrade, Robert M. Ewers, Kyle E. Harms, Regina C. C. Luizão, José E. Ribeiro

Abstract

Edge effects are major drivers of change in many fragmented landscapes, but are often highly variable in space and time. Here we assess variability in edge effects altering Amazon forest dynamics, plant community composition, invading species, and carbon storage, in the world's largest and longest-running experimental study of habitat fragmentation. Despite detailed knowledge of local landscape conditions, spatial variability in edge effects was only partially foreseeable: relatively predictable effects were caused by the differing proximity of plots to forest edge and varying matrix vegetation, but windstorms generated much random variability. Temporal variability in edge phenomena was also only partially predictable: forest dynamics varied somewhat with fragment age, but also fluctuated markedly over time, evidently because of sporadic droughts and windstorms. Given the acute sensitivity of habitat fragments to local landscape and weather dynamics, we predict that fragments within the same landscape will tend to converge in species composition, whereas those in different landscapes will diverge in composition. This 'landscape-divergence hypothesis', if generally valid, will have key implications for biodiversity-conservation strategies and for understanding the dynamics of fragmented ecosystems.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 1,068 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 29 3%
United States 10 <1%
Germany 4 <1%
Australia 4 <1%
Switzerland 3 <1%
Argentina 3 <1%
India 3 <1%
Portugal 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Other 17 2%
Unknown 991 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 180 17%
Student > Master 177 17%
Student > Bachelor 157 15%
Researcher 148 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 64 6%
Other 183 17%
Unknown 159 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 492 46%
Environmental Science 262 25%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 36 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 25 2%
Social Sciences 9 <1%
Other 44 4%
Unknown 200 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 10 December 2015.
All research outputs
#14,666,620
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#126,958
of 224,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,341
of 84,575 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#189
of 232 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 224,660 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 84,575 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 232 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.