↓ Skip to main content

Science Advances

Article Metrics

Networks of global bird invasion altered by regional trade ban

Overview of attention for article published in Science Advances, November 2017
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 (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
11 news outlets
blogs
5 blogs
twitter
126 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
124 Mendeley
Title
Networks of global bird invasion altered by regional trade ban
Published in
Science Advances, November 2017
DOI 10.1126/sciadv.1700783
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luís Reino, Rui Figueira, Pedro Beja, Miguel B. Araújo, César Capinha, Diederik Strubbe

Abstract

Wildlife trade is a major pathway for introduction of invasive species worldwide. However, how exactly wildlife trade influences invasion risk, beyond the transportation of individuals to novel areas, remains unknown. We analyze the global trade network of wild-caught birds from 1995 to 2011 as reported by CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora). We found that before the European Union ban on imports of wild-caught birds, declared in 2005, invasion risk was closely associated with numbers of imported birds, diversity of import sources, and degree of network centrality of importer countries. After the ban, fluxes of global bird trade declined sharply. However, new trade routes emerged, primarily toward the Nearctic, Afrotropical, and Indo-Malay regions. Although regional bans can curtail invasion risk globally, to be fully effective and prevent rerouting of trade flows, bans should be global.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 126 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 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 124 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 34 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 17%
Student > Master 15 12%
Student > Bachelor 9 7%
Other 7 6%
Other 19 15%
Unknown 19 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 54 44%
Environmental Science 32 26%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 2%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 2%
Other 9 7%
Unknown 20 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 195. 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 04 June 2020.
All research outputs
#112,506
of 17,882,239 outputs
Outputs from Science Advances
#922
of 6,626 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,100
of 421,528 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science Advances
#38
of 192 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,882,239 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 6,626 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 119.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 421,528 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 192 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.