Re‐Creating Missing Population Baselines for Pacific Reef Sharks

Overview of attention for article published in Conservation Biology, January 2012
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 (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
52 tweeters
facebook
5 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
145 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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
Re‐Creating Missing Population Baselines for Pacific Reef Sharks
Published in
Conservation Biology, January 2012
DOI 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01835.x
Pubmed ID
Authors

NADON, MARC O., BAUM, JULIA K., WILLIAMS, IVOR D., MCPHERSON, JANA M., ZGLICZYNSKI, BRIAN J., RICHARDS, BENJAMIN L., SCHROEDER, ROBERT E., BRAINARD, RUSSELL E., Nadon MO, Baum JK, Williams ID, McPherson JM, Zgliczynski BJ, Richards BL, Schroeder RE, Brainard RE

Abstract

Sharks and other large predators are scarce on most coral reefs, but studies of their historical ecology provide qualitative evidence that predators were once numerous in these ecosystems. Quantifying density of sharks in the absence of humans (baseline) is, however, hindered by a paucity of pertinent time-series data. Recently researchers have used underwater visual surveys, primarily of limited spatial extent or nonstandard design, to infer negative associations between reef shark abundance and human populations. We analyzed data from 1607 towed-diver surveys (>1 ha transects surveyed by observers towed behind a boat) conducted at 46 reefs in the central-western Pacific Ocean, reefs that included some of the world's most pristine coral reefs. Estimates of shark density from towed-diver surveys were substantially lower (<10%) than published estimates from surveys along small transects (<0.02 ha), which is not consistent with inverted biomass pyramids (predator biomass greater than prey biomass) reported by other researchers for pristine reefs. We examined the relation between the density of reef sharks observed in towed-diver surveys and human population in models that accounted for the influence of oceanic primary productivity, sea surface temperature, reef area, and reef physical complexity. We used these models to estimate the density of sharks in the absence of humans. Densities of gray reef sharks (Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos), whitetip reef sharks (Triaenodon obesus), and the group "all reef sharks" increased substantially as human population decreased and as primary productivity and minimum sea surface temperature (or reef area, which was highly correlated with temperature) increased. Simulated baseline densities of reef sharks under the absence of humans were 1.1-2.4/ha for the main Hawaiian Islands, 1.2-2.4/ha for inhabited islands of American Samoa, and 0.9-2.1/ha for inhabited islands in the Mariana Archipelago, which suggests that density of reef sharks has declined to 3-10% of baseline levels in these areas.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 52 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 145 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 7 5%
Brazil 4 3%
Colombia 2 1%
Peru 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Other 4 3%
Unknown 122 84%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 43 30%
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 23%
Student > Master 27 19%
Student > Bachelor 13 9%
Student > Postgraduate 5 3%
Other 24 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 101 70%
Environmental Science 31 21%
Unspecified 4 3%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 3 2%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 2%
Other 3 2%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 54. 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 26 January 2017.
All research outputs
#135,419
of 7,289,383 outputs
Outputs from Conservation Biology
#103
of 2,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,179
of 90,746 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Conservation Biology
#1
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,289,383 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,003 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 90,746 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 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 95% of its contemporaries.