↓ Skip to main content

Viewing biodiversity through the lens of science…and art!

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
Title
Viewing biodiversity through the lens of science…and art!
Published in
SpringerPlus, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40064-016-2831-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

David G. Angeler

Abstract

With global environmental sustainability at the crossroads, approaches are needed to build an ecologically literate culture for collective societal navigation through the intricacies of swift environmental change. This paper demonstrates a transdisciplinary approach, grounded at the intersection between the arts and sciences, to increase awareness and understanding of the current biodiversity crisis. It focuses on one aspect of biodiversity, beta diversity, which examines how sets of animal and plant species differ between habitats. Theory and real examples of beta diversity of aquatic animal and plant species from dried-out ponds in Mediterranean Spain are presented in pixelized visuals. These visuals are artistic expression of and build the prior knowledge about beta diversity, which is scrutinized subsequently with statistical analyses to support the artistic approach with an objectively identified and numerically underpinned presentation of structure in the visuals. The choice to examine beta diversity in theory and reality first through art and then through science is deliberate. Combined, these aspects examine biodiversity through an eco-centric, rather than a species- and habitat centric view, incorporate elements of surprise (how can aquatic species in dry ecosystems survive), and reduce uncertainty (by providing a common numerical yardstick for interpreting the visuals). Together they can optimize a goal-directed learning process in the viewers necessary for making judgments, inducing affective reactions, and facilitating memory and decision making. The approach presented here provides an integral qualitative and quantitative model useful for a broader inductive-deductive education process towards finding sustainable solutions as our planet moves swiftly to a future without historical analogue. Combined art-sciences approaches, as the one presented here, are useful to facilitate citizens' comprehension of the scientific and potential policy dimensions of environmental change, including biodiversity problems, especially because it is the general public that bears the costs of transformation and adaptation measures.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Sweden 1 3%
Unknown 38 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 13%
Researcher 4 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Other 8 20%
Unknown 7 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 20%
Social Sciences 4 10%
Environmental Science 3 8%
Arts and Humanities 3 8%
Psychology 2 5%
Other 10 25%
Unknown 10 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 July 2016.
All research outputs
#15,380,359
of 22,881,154 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#935
of 1,851 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,234
of 365,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#130
of 248 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,154 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,851 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 365,298 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 248 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.