↓ Skip to main content

ANTIBODIES AGAINST PASTEURELLA MULTOCIDA IN SNOW GEESE IN THE WESTERN ARCTIC

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Wildlife Diseases, July 1999
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 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
ANTIBODIES AGAINST PASTEURELLA MULTOCIDA IN SNOW GEESE IN THE WESTERN ARCTIC
Published in
Journal of Wildlife Diseases, July 1999
DOI 10.7589/0090-3558-35.3.440
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael D. Samuel, Daniel J. Shadduck, Diana R. Goldberg, Vasily Baranyuk, Louis Sileo, Jessie I. Price

Abstract

To determine if lesser snow geese (Chen caerulescens caerulescens) are a potential reservoir for the Pasteurella multocida bacterium that causes avian cholera, serum samples and/or pharyngeal swabs were collected from > 3,400 adult geese breeding on Wrangel Island (Russia) and Banks Island (Canada) during 1993-1996. Pharyngeal swab sampling rarely (> 0.1%) detected birds that were exposed to P. multocida in these populations. Geese with serum antibody levels indicating recent infection with P. multocida were found at both breeding colonies. Prevalence of seropositive birds was 3.5% at Wrangel Island, an area that has no recorded history of avian cholera epizootics. Prevalence of seropositive birds was 2.8% at Banks Island in 1994, but increased to 8.2% during 1995 and 1996 when an estimated 40,000-60,000 snow geese were infected. Approximately 50% of the infected birds died during the epizootic and a portion of the surviving birds may have become carriers of the disease. This pattern of prevalence indicated that enzootic levels of infection with P. multocida occurred at both breeding colonies. When no avian cholera epizootics occurred (Wrangel Island, Banks Island in 1994), female snow geese (4.7%) had higher antibody prevalence than males (2.0%).

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Argentina 1 5%
Unknown 20 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 10%
Other 2 10%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Other 4 19%
Unknown 4 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 43%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 4 19%
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 12 February 2017.
All research outputs
#8,534,976
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Wildlife Diseases
#476
of 1,786 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,366
of 34,930 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Wildlife Diseases
#1
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,786 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 34,930 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them