↓ Skip to main content

Responses of wintering geese to the designation of goose foraging areas in The Netherlands

Overview of attention for article published in Ambio, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
Title
Responses of wintering geese to the designation of goose foraging areas in The Netherlands
Published in
Ambio, February 2017
DOI 10.1007/s13280-016-0885-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kees Koffijberg, Hans Schekkerman, Henk van der Jeugd, Menno Hornman, Erik van Winden

Abstract

The Netherlands is important for wintering migratory herbivorous geese, numbers of which have rapidly increased, leading to conflict with agriculture. In 2005/2006, a new goose management policy aimed to limit compensation payments to farmers by concentrating foraging geese in 80 000 ha of designated 'go' areas-where farmers received payment to accommodate them-and scaring geese from 'no go' areas elsewhere. Monthly national counts of four abundant goose species during 10 years prior to the new policy and in 8 years following implementation found that 57% of all goose days were spent within 'go' areas under the new management, the same as prior to implementation. Such lack of response suggests no predicted learning effects, perhaps because of (i) increases in abundance outside of 'go' areas, (ii) irregularly shaped boundaries and enclaves of 'no go' farmland within 'go' areas and/or (iii) insufficient differences in disturbance levels within and outside designated areas.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 53 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 19%
Student > Master 9 17%
Researcher 8 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 15%
Other 2 4%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 12 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 37%
Environmental Science 11 20%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Unspecified 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 17 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 21 August 2019.
All research outputs
#1,361,938
of 22,958,253 outputs
Outputs from Ambio
#224
of 1,631 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,197
of 310,166 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ambio
#8
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,958,253 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,631 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. 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 310,166 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 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.