Automated Author ProfileBailey, Sallie
University of Bristol
Bailey, Sallie
University of Bristol
Current S-Index
1.2
Sum of Dataset Indices for all datasets
Average Dataset Index per Dataset
1.2
Average Dataset Index per dataset
Total Datasets
1
Total datasets for this author
Average FAIR Score
76.9%
Average FAIR Score per dataset
Total Citations
1
Total citations to the author's datasets
Total Mentions
0
Total mentions of the author's datasets
S-Index Interpretation
The S-Index (Sharing Index) is a comprehensive metric that represents the cumulative impact of all your datasets. It is calculated as the sum of Dataset Index scores across all your claimed datasets.
What it means:
- A higher S-index indicates greater overall impact of your datasets relative to typical datasets in their fields of research
- The S-Index grows as you add more datasets or as existing datasets gain more citations and mentions
- It provides a single number to track your research data impact over time
Current S-Index: 1.2 (sum of 1 dataset Dataset Index scores)
More information here.
S-Index Over Time
Cumulative Citations Over Time
Cumulative Mentions Over Time
Datasets
- Testing restoration methods is essential for the development of restoration ecology as a science. It is also important to monitor a range of taxa, not just plants which have been the traditional focus of restoration ecology. Here we compare the effects on ground flora and leaf-miners, of two restoration practices used when restoring conifer plantations. 2. Two methods of restoration were investigated: clearfelling of plantations and the gradual thinning of conifers over time. Unrestored plantations and native broad-leaved woodlands were also surveyed, these representing the starting point of restoration and the reference community respectively. The study sites consist of two forest types (acidic Quercus woodland and mesotrophic Fraxinus woodland) enabling us to compare the two restoration methods in different habitat types. We use a well-replicated, large-scale study system consisting of 32 woodland plots, each 2 ha in size. 3. There were 179 plant species identified in the plots. Clearfelled plots had greater overall ground flora species richness than other management regimes (thinned, unrestored plantation and native woodland), but the richness of woodland plant species did not differ between clearfelled, thinned, native woodland and unrestored plantation plots. 4. More than 10 000 leaf-miners comprising 122 species were collected. Increased plant species richness was associated with increased leaf-miner species richness under all management regimes except clearfelled plots. 5. Forest type did not affect the response to restoration method, i.e. there was no interaction between management regime and forest type for any of the variables measured. 6. Synthesis and applications. Our results suggest that both the clearfelling and gradual thinning approaches to plantation restoration maintain woodland ground flora species. Either method can be used without detriment to woodland ground flora species richness. However, these methods differed in their effects on the leaf-miner–plant species richness relationship. If increasing invertebrate herbivore species richness is a concern the gradual thinning approach is more appropriate.
Authors
- Atkinson, Beth ;
- Bailey, Sallie ;
- Vaughan, Ian P. ;
- Memmott, Jane
1 Citation0 Mentions77% FAIR1.2 Dataset Index
10.5061/dryad.q20jf2016