| Title |
Monitoring of species’ genetic diversity in Europe varies greatly and overlooks potential climate change impacts
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nature Ecology & Evolution, January 2024
|
| DOI | 10.1038/s41559-023-02260-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Peter B. Pearman, Olivier Broennimann, Tsipe Aavik, Tamer Albayrak, Paulo C. Alves, F. A. Aravanopoulos, Laura D. Bertola, Aleksandra Biedrzycka, Elena Buzan, Vlatka Cubric-Curik, Mihajla Djan, Ancuta Fedorca, Angela P. Fuentes-Pardo, Barbara Fussi, José A. Godoy, Felix Gugerli, Sean Hoban, Rolf Holderegger, Christina Hvilsom, Laura Iacolina, Belma Kalamujic Stroil, Peter Klinga, Maciej K. Konopiński, Alexander Kopatz, Linda Laikre, Margarida Lopes-Fernandes, Barry John McMahon, Joachim Mergeay, Charalambos Neophytou, Snæbjörn Pálsson, Ivan Paz-Vinas, Diana Posledovich, Craig R. Primmer, Joost A. M. Raeymaekers, Baruch Rinkevich, Barbora Rolečková, Dainis Ruņģis, Laura Schuerz, Gernot Segelbacher, Katja Kavčič Sonnenschein, Milomir Stefanovic, Henrik Thurfjell, Sabrina Träger, Ivaylo N. Tsvetkov, Nevena Velickovic, Philippine Vergeer, Cristiano Vernesi, Carles Vilà, Marjana Westergren, Frank E. Zachos, Antoine Guisan, Michael Bruford |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 88 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 Kingdom | 9 | 10% |
| Finland | 5 | 6% |
| United States | 4 | 5% |
| Sweden | 4 | 5% |
| Spain | 4 | 5% |
| Netherlands | 3 | 3% |
| Switzerland | 3 | 3% |
| Denmark | 2 | 2% |
| Slovenia | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 12 | 14% |
| Unknown | 40 | 45% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 52 | 59% |
| Scientists | 34 | 39% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 57 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 12 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 8 | 14% |
| Unknown | 13 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 12 | 21% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 11 | 19% |
| Environmental Science | 10 | 18% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 4% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 9% |
| Unknown | 16 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 200. 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 08 April 2024.
All research outputs
#203,866
of 25,941,588 outputs
Outputs from Nature Ecology & Evolution
#398
of 2,198 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,034
of 361,838 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Ecology & Evolution
#14
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,941,588 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 2,198 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 149.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 361,838 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 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.