↓ Skip to main content

Cell Press

Article Metrics

The intermediate disturbance hypothesis should be abandoned

Overview of attention for article published in Trends in Ecology & Evolution, February 2013
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 (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
4 blogs
twitter
48 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
298 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1842 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
The intermediate disturbance hypothesis should be abandoned
Published in
Trends in Ecology & Evolution, February 2013
DOI 10.1016/j.tree.2012.08.014
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeremy W. Fox

Abstract

A leading idea about how disturbances and other environmental fluctuations affect species diversity is the intermediate disturbance hypothesis (IDH). The IDH states that diversity of competing species is, or should be expected to be, maximized at intermediate frequencies and/or intensities of disturbance or environmental change. I argue that the IDH has been refuted on both empirical and theoretical grounds, and so should be abandoned. Empirical studies only rarely find the predicted humped diversity-disturbance relationship. Theoretically, the three major mechanisms thought to produce humped diversity-disturbance relationships are logically invalid and do not actually predict what they are thought to predict. Disturbances and other environmental fluctuations can affect diversity, but for different reasons than are commonly recognized.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 48 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 1,842 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 52 3%
Brazil 36 2%
Canada 11 <1%
United Kingdom 9 <1%
Spain 7 <1%
Switzerland 6 <1%
Germany 6 <1%
France 4 <1%
Australia 4 <1%
Other 49 3%
Unknown 1658 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 451 24%
Student > Master 323 18%
Researcher 299 16%
Student > Bachelor 207 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 105 6%
Other 301 16%
Unknown 156 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 955 52%
Environmental Science 479 26%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 63 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 34 2%
Social Sciences 16 <1%
Other 55 3%
Unknown 240 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 66. 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 23 April 2021.
All research outputs
#479,729
of 20,945,747 outputs
Outputs from Trends in Ecology & Evolution
#298
of 2,867 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,530
of 152,362 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trends in Ecology & Evolution
#3
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,945,747 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,867 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 152,362 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.