↓ Skip to main content

Systematic Conservation Planning in the Face of Climate Change: Bet-Hedging on the Columbia Plateau

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, December 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
158 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
Systematic Conservation Planning in the Face of Climate Change: Bet-Hedging on the Columbia Plateau
Published in
PLOS ONE, December 2011
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0028788
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carrie A. Schloss, Joshua J. Lawler, Eric R. Larson, Hilary L. Papendick, Michael J. Case, Daniel M. Evans, Jack H. DeLap, Jesse G. R. Langdon, Sonia A. Hall, Brad H. McRae

Abstract

Systematic conservation planning efforts typically focus on protecting current patterns of biodiversity. Climate change is poised to shift species distributions, reshuffle communities, and alter ecosystem functioning. In such a dynamic environment, lands selected to protect today's biodiversity may fail to do so in the future. One proposed approach to designing reserve networks that are robust to climate change involves protecting the diversity of abiotic conditions that in part determine species distributions and ecological processes. A set of abiotically diverse areas will likely support a diversity of ecological systems both today and into the future, although those two sets of systems might be dramatically different. Here, we demonstrate a conservation planning approach based on representing unique combinations of abiotic factors. We prioritize sites that represent the diversity of soils, topographies, and current climates of the Columbia Plateau. We then compare these sites to sites prioritized to protect current biodiversity. This comparison highlights places that are important for protecting both today's biodiversity and the diversity of abiotic factors that will likely determine biodiversity patterns in the future. It also highlights places where a reserve network designed solely to protect today's biodiversity would fail to capture the diversity of abiotic conditions and where such a network could be augmented to be more robust to climate-change impacts.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 158 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
Australia 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 152 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 50 32%
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 20%
Student > Master 24 15%
Student > Bachelor 11 7%
Other 10 6%
Other 20 13%
Unknown 12 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 63 40%
Environmental Science 60 38%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 6 4%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Chemical Engineering 2 1%
Other 5 3%
Unknown 19 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 18 December 2011.
All research outputs
#13,358,186
of 22,659,164 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#106,312
of 193,435 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#146,554
of 240,849 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,422
of 2,869 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,659,164 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,435 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. 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 240,849 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2,869 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.