↓ Skip to main content

Multi-criteria Decision Analysis to Model Ixodes ricinus Habitat Suitability

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
Title
Multi-criteria Decision Analysis to Model Ixodes ricinus Habitat Suitability
Published in
EcoHealth, June 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10393-017-1247-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Raphaël Rousseau, Guy McGrath, Barry J. McMahon, Sophie O. Vanwambeke

Abstract

Tick-borne diseases present a major threat to both human and livestock health throughout Europe. The risk of infection is directly related to the presence of its vector. Thereby it is important to know their distribution, which is strongly associated with environmental factors: the presence and availability of a suitable habitat, of a suitable climate and of hosts. The present study models the habitat suitability for Ixodes ricinus in Ireland, where data on tick distribution are scarce. Tick habitat suitability was estimated at a coarse scale (10 km) with a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) method according to four different scenarios (depending on the variables used and on the weights granted to each of them). The western part of Ireland and the Wicklow mountains in the East were estimated to be the most suitable areas for I. ricinus in the island. There was a good level of agreement between results from the MCDA and recorded tick presence. The different scenarios did not affect the spatial outputs substantially. The current study suggests that tick habitat suitability can be mapped accurately at a coarse scale in a data-scarce context using knowledge-based methods. It can serve as a guideline for future countrywide sampling that would help to determine local risk of tick presence and refining knowledge on tick habitat suitability in Ireland.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 16%
Researcher 7 16%
Student > Bachelor 5 12%
Student > Master 5 12%
Other 4 9%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 9 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 19%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 6 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 12%
Environmental Science 3 7%
Engineering 3 7%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 11 26%
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 21 June 2018.
All research outputs
#15,465,171
of 22,981,247 outputs
Outputs from EcoHealth
#554
of 710 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,776
of 316,590 outputs
Outputs of similar age from EcoHealth
#10
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,981,247 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 316,590 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.