| Title |
Saving the World's Terrestrial Megafauna
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BioScience, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1093/biosci/biw092 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
William J. Ripple, Guillaume Chapron, José Vicente López-Bao, Sarah M. Durant, David W. Macdonald, Peter A. Lindsey, Elizabeth L. Bennett, Robert L. Beschta, Jeremy T. Bruskotter, Ahimsa Campos-Arceiz, Richard T. Corlett, Chris T. Darimont, Amy J. Dickman, Rodolfo Dirzo, Holly T. Dublin, James A. Estes, Kristoffer T. Everatt, Mauro Galetti, Varun R. Goswami, Matt W. Hayward, Simon Hedges, Michael Hoffmann, Luke T. B. Hunter, Graham I. H. Kerley, Mike Letnic, Taal Levi, Fiona Maisels, John C. Morrison, Michael Paul Nelson, Thomas M. Newsome, Luke Painter, Robert M. Pringle, Christopher J. Sandom, John Terborgh, Adrian Treves, Blaire Van Valkenburgh, John A. Vucetich, Aaron J. Wirsing, Arian D. Wallach, Christopher Wolf, Rosie Woodroffe, Hillary Young, Li Zhang |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 765 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 131 | 17% |
| United Kingdom | 54 | 7% |
| Australia | 25 | 3% |
| Canada | 17 | 2% |
| Spain | 14 | 2% |
| Germany | 11 | 1% |
| France | 11 | 1% |
| Brazil | 9 | 1% |
| South Africa | 8 | 1% |
| Other | 96 | 13% |
| Unknown | 389 | 51% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 672 | 88% |
| Scientists | 65 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 18 | 2% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 9 | 1% |
| Unknown | 1 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 602 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 7 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 6 | <1% |
| Brazil | 3 | <1% |
| Portugal | 2 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Nepal | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 6 | <1% |
| Unknown | 573 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 110 | 18% |
| Researcher | 93 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 86 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 73 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 37 | 6% |
| Other | 91 | 15% |
| Unknown | 112 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 231 | 38% |
| Environmental Science | 189 | 31% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 15 | 2% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 9 | 1% |
| Engineering | 6 | <1% |
| Other | 29 | 5% |
| Unknown | 123 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1124. 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 April 2024.
All research outputs
#13,544
of 25,791,949 outputs
Outputs from BioScience
#8
of 2,615 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#200
of 381,548 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BioScience
#1
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,791,949 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 2,615 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 42.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 381,548 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 23 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.