↓ Skip to main content

Symptomatic Raccoon Dogs and Sarcoptic Mange Along an Urban Gradient

Overview of attention for article published in EcoHealth, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
Title
Symptomatic Raccoon Dogs and Sarcoptic Mange Along an Urban Gradient
Published in
EcoHealth, April 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10393-017-1233-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Masayuki U. Saito, Yoichi Sonoda

Abstract

We quantitatively evaluated the effects of landscape factors on the distribution of symptomatic raccoon dogs with sarcoptic mange along an urban gradient. We used 246 camera traps (182 traps from April 2005 to December 2006; 64 traps from September 2009 to October 2010) to record the occurrence of asymptomatic and symptomatic raccoon dogs at 21 survey sites along an urban-rural gradient in the Tama Hills area of Tokyo. Each occurrence was explained in terms of the surrounding forest, agricultural, and grassland areas and additional factors (i.e., seasonal variations and survey methods) at various spatial scales using a generalized additive mixed model (GAMM). In our analysis, a 1000-m radius was identified as the important spatial scale for asymptomatic and symptomatic raccoon dog occurrence. The peak of the predicted occurrence probability of asymptomatic raccoon dogs appeared in the intermediate forest landscape as opposed to non-forest and forest landscapes. However, a high occurrence probability of symptomatic raccoon dogs was detected in non-forest and intermediate forest landscapes (i.e., urban and suburban) as opposed to a forest landscape, presumably because of animals occurring at much higher densities in more urbanized areas. Therefore, our results suggest that human-modified landscapes play an important role in the high occurrence of sarcoptic mange in raccoon dogs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 20%
Student > Bachelor 7 16%
Student > Master 7 16%
Researcher 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 8 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 27%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 7 16%
Environmental Science 7 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 11 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 17 April 2018.
All research outputs
#20,412,387
of 22,962,258 outputs
Outputs from EcoHealth
#658
of 710 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#269,225
of 308,921 outputs
Outputs of similar age from EcoHealth
#12
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,962,258 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 710 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 308,921 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.