↓ Skip to main content

Invasive mammal eradication on islands results in substantial conservation gains

Overview of attention for article published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
37 news outlets
blogs
9 blogs
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
202 X users
facebook
12 Facebook pages
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
369 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
540 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
Invasive mammal eradication on islands results in substantial conservation gains
Published in
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, March 2016
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1521179113
Pubmed ID
Authors

Holly P. Jones, Nick D. Holmes, Stuart H. M. Butchart, Bernie R. Tershy, Peter J. Kappes, Ilse Corkery, Alfonso Aguirre-Muñoz, Doug P. Armstrong, Elsa Bonnaud, Andrew A. Burbidge, Karl Campbell, Franck Courchamp, Philip E. Cowan, Richard J. Cuthbert, Steve Ebbert, Piero Genovesi, Gregg R. Howald, Bradford S. Keitt, Stephen W. Kress, Colin M. Miskelly, Steffen Oppel, Sally Poncet, Mark J. Rauzon, Gérard Rocamora, James C. Russell, Araceli Samaniego-Herrera, Philip J. Seddon, Dena R. Spatz, David R. Towns, Donald A. Croll

Abstract

More than US$21 billion is spent annually on biodiversity conservation. Despite their importance for preventing or slowing extinctions and preserving biodiversity, conservation interventions are rarely assessed systematically for their global impact. Islands house a disproportionately higher amount of biodiversity compared with mainlands, much of which is highly threatened with extinction. Indeed, island species make up nearly two-thirds of recent extinctions. Islands therefore are critical targets of conservation. We used an extensive literature and database review paired with expert interviews to estimate the global benefits of an increasingly used conservation action to stem biodiversity loss: eradication of invasive mammals on islands. We found 236 native terrestrial insular faunal species (596 populations) that benefitted through positive demographic and/or distributional responses from 251 eradications of invasive mammals on 181 islands. Seven native species (eight populations) were negatively impacted by invasive mammal eradication. Four threatened species had their International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List extinction-risk categories reduced as a direct result of invasive mammal eradication, and no species moved to a higher extinction-risk category. We predict that 107 highly threatened birds, mammals, and reptiles on the IUCN Red List-6% of all these highly threatened species-likely have benefitted from invasive mammal eradications on islands. Because monitoring of eradication outcomes is sporadic and limited, the impacts of global eradications are likely greater than we report here. Our results highlight the importance of invasive mammal eradication on islands for protecting the world's most imperiled fauna.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 202 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 540 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 <1%
France 2 <1%
Italy 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 527 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 96 18%
Student > Master 88 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 87 16%
Student > Bachelor 61 11%
Other 35 6%
Other 75 14%
Unknown 98 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 201 37%
Environmental Science 152 28%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 21 4%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 11 2%
Social Sciences 7 1%
Other 27 5%
Unknown 121 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 495. 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 05 January 2023.
All research outputs
#53,328
of 25,622,179 outputs
Outputs from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#1,368
of 103,460 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#977
of 314,245 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#35
of 898 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,622,179 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 103,460 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 314,245 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 898 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.