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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Experiments in no-impact control of dingoes: comment on Allen et al. 2013
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Zoology, February 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1742-9994-11-17 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christopher N Johnson, Mathew S Crowther, Chris R Dickman, Michael I Letnic, Thomas M Newsome, Dale G Nimmo, Euan G Ritchie, Arian D Wallach |
| Abstract |
There has been much recent debate in Australia over whether lethal control of dingoes incurs environmental costs, particularly by allowing increase of populations of mesopredators such as red foxes and feral cats. Allen et al. (2013) claim to show in their recent study that suppression of dingo activity by poison baiting does not lead to mesopredator release, because mesopredators are also suppressed by poisoning. We show that this claim is not supported by the data and analysis reported in Allen et al.'s paper. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 11 | 73% |
| Namibia | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 3 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 11 | 73% |
| Scientists | 4 | 27% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 2 | 4% |
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 43 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 17% |
| Other | 7 | 15% |
| Researcher | 7 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 6 | 13% |
| Unknown | 8 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 18 | 39% |
| Environmental Science | 11 | 24% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Unknown | 9 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 17 September 2016.
All research outputs
#3,789,608
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Zoology
#226
of 695 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,179
of 239,843 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Zoology
#9
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 695 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 239,843 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.