↓ Skip to main content

Badger responses to small-scale culling may compromise targeted control of bovine tuberculosis

Overview of attention for article published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
7 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
126 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
69 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
181 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
Badger responses to small-scale culling may compromise targeted control of bovine tuberculosis
Published in
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, June 2014
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1401503111
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jon Bielby, Christl A. Donnelly, Lisa C. Pope, Terry Burke, Rosie Woodroffe

Abstract

Where wildlife disease requires management, culling is frequently considered but not always effective. In the British Isles, control of cattle tuberculosis (TB) is hindered by infection in wild badger (Meles meles) populations. Large-scale badger culling can reduce the incidence of confirmed cattle TB, but these benefits are undermined by culling-induced changes in badger behavior (termed perturbation), which can increase transmission among badgers and from badgers to cattle. Test-vaccinate/remove (TVR) is a novel approach that entails testing individual badgers for infection, vaccinating test-negative animals, and killing test-positive animals. Imperfect capture success, diagnostic sensitivity, and vaccine effectiveness mean that TVR would be expected to leave some infected and some susceptible badgers in the population. Existing simulation models predict that TVR could reduce cattle TB if such small-scale culling causes no perturbation, but could increase cattle TB if considerable perturbation occurs. Using data from a long-term study, we show that past small-scale culling was significantly associated with four metrics of perturbation in badgers: expanded ranging, more frequent immigration, lower genetic relatedness, and elevated prevalence of Mycobacterium bovis, the causative agent of TB. Though we could not reject the hypothesis that culling up to three badgers per social group might avoid perturbation, we also could not reject the hypothesis that killing a single badger prompted detectable perturbation. When considered alongside existing model predictions, our findings suggest that implementation of TVR, scheduled for 2014, risks exacerbating the TB problem rather than controlling it. Ongoing illegal badger culling is likewise expected to increase cattle TB risks.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 126 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 181 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 5 3%
United States 4 2%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 170 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 41 23%
Student > Bachelor 31 17%
Researcher 29 16%
Student > Master 26 14%
Other 8 4%
Other 25 14%
Unknown 21 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 77 43%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 20 11%
Environmental Science 19 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 6%
Social Sciences 8 4%
Other 19 10%
Unknown 27 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 155. 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 09 October 2017.
All research outputs
#269,093
of 25,711,518 outputs
Outputs from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#4,956
of 103,588 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,111
of 244,151 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#64
of 928 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,711,518 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 103,588 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 244,151 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 928 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.