↓ Skip to main content

Harmonizing methods for wildlife abundance estimation and pathogen detection in Europe—a questionnaire survey on three selected host-pathogen combinations

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Veterinary Research, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Harmonizing methods for wildlife abundance estimation and pathogen detection in Europe—a questionnaire survey on three selected host-pathogen combinations
Published in
BMC Veterinary Research, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12917-016-0935-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jana Sonnenburg, Marie-Pierre Ryser-Degiorgis, Thijs Kuiken, Ezio Ferroglio, Rainer G. Ulrich, Franz J. Conraths, Christian Gortázar, Christoph Staubach

Abstract

The need for wildlife health surveillance as part of disease control in wildlife, domestic animals and humans on the global level is widely recognized. However, the objectives, methods and intensity of existing wildlife health surveillance programs vary greatly among European countries, resulting in a patchwork of data that are difficult to merge and compare. This survey aimed at evaluating the need and potential for data harmonization in wildlife health in Europe. The specific objective was to collect information on methods currently used to estimate host abundance and pathogen prevalence. Questionnaires were designed to gather detailed information for three host-pathogen combinations: (1) wild boar and Aujeszky's disease virus, (2) red fox and Echinococcus multilocularis, and (3) common vole and Francisella tularensis. We received a total of 70 responses from 19 European countries. Regarding host abundance, hunting bags are currently the most widely accessible data source for widely distributed mid-sized and larger mammals such as red fox and wild boar, but we observed large differences in hunting strategies among countries as well as among different regions within countries. For small rodents, trapping is the method of choice, but practical applications vary among study sites. Laboratory procedures are already largely harmonized but information on the sampled animals is not systematically collected. The answers revealed that a large amount of information is available for the selected host-pathogen pairs and that in theory methods are already largely harmonized. However, the comparability of the data remains strongly compromised by local differences in the way, the methods are applied in practice. While these issues may easily be overcome for prevalence estimation, there is an urgent need to develop tools for the routine collection of host abundance data in a harmonized way. Wildlife health experts are encouraged to apply the harmonized APHAEA protocols in epidemiological studies in wildlife and to increase cooperation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 56 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 18%
Student > Master 9 16%
Student > Bachelor 7 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 10 18%
Unknown 5 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 26%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 13 23%
Environmental Science 5 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 7%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 4%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 10 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 10 November 2017.
All research outputs
#6,966,910
of 12,122,714 outputs
Outputs from BMC Veterinary Research
#605
of 1,669 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,492
of 260,360 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Veterinary Research
#18
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,122,714 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,669 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 260,360 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.