↓ Skip to main content

Development of a Humane Slaughter Device for Green Turtles for Use by Traditional Owners in the Torres Strait Islands, Australia

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 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
Development of a Humane Slaughter Device for Green Turtles for Use by Traditional Owners in the Torres Strait Islands, Australia
Published in
PLOS ONE, January 2017
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0167849
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mark Flint, Paul C. Mills, Frank Loban, Tristan Simpson, Stan Lui, Ronald Fujii, Don Whap, Jaylene B. Flint, Helen Owen

Abstract

Marine turtles are caught and slaughtered for consumption as part of traditional indigenous community harvest in Australia as well as in many countries in which marine turtles can be found. However, changes to the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 in 2012 resulted in Australian indigenous hunters becoming potentially liable to prosecution for using traditional practices to slaughter marine turtles. To provide indigenous hunters with an alternative scientifically tested method to hunt, we developed and tested a humane method as an option to use in indigenous communities. Between 2012 and 2015, a device was developed, tested on 11 carcasses to determine effectiveness and repeatability, used on 5 anaesthetised animals independently diagnosed as candidates for euthanasia, and ultimately used on 2 healthy, conscious animals as part of normal indigenous community subsistence harvesting under observation before being left with the communities for use. Feedback was sought from the communities on the suitability and potential adoption of the device. The device effectively ablated the hind brain and severed the spinal cord when deployed in 81% (9/11) of the tested carcasses, with death in 100% (5/5) of turtles, on average, within 78 seconds of deployment on anaesthetised turtles and death in 100% (2/2) of turtles, on average, within 144 seconds when deployed on healthy turtles within community. Failure to ablate the hindbrain and sever the spinal cord in the cadaver cases was due to incorrect deployment of the device. This device showed promise as an alternative euthanasia method available to indigenous communities of the Torres Straits. Further work is required to encourage acceptance by hunters.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 11%
Researcher 3 11%
Student > Master 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 10 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 5 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 15%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 7%
Social Sciences 2 7%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 10 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 20 January 2017.
All research outputs
#13,454,214
of 23,408,972 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#108,854
of 200,329 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#207,421
of 424,369 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,102
of 4,275 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,408,972 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 200,329 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.3. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 424,369 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,275 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 50% of its contemporaries.