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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
A comparative modeling study on non-climatic and climatic risk assessment on Asian Tiger Mosquito (Aedes albopictus)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PeerJ, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.7717/peerj.4474 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Farzin Shabani, Mahyat Shafapour Tehrany, Samaneh Solhjouy-fard, Lalit Kumar |
| Abstract |
Aedes albopictus, the Asian Tiger Mosquito, vector of Chikungunya, Dengue Fever and Zika viruses, has proven its hardy adaptability in expansion from its natural Asian, forest edge, tree hole habitat on the back of international trade transportation, re-establishing in temperate urban surrounds, in a range of water receptacles and semi-enclosures of organic matter. Conventional aerial spray mosquito vector controls focus on wetland and stagnant water expanses, proven to miss the protected hollows and crevices favoured by Ae. albopictus. New control or eradication strategies are thus essential, particular in light of potential expansions in the southeastern and eastern USA. Successful regional vector control strategies require risk level analysis. Should strategies prioritize regions with non-climatic or climatic suitability parameters for Ae. albopictus? Our study used current Ae. albopictus distribution data to develop two independent models: (i) regions with suitable non-climatic factors, and (ii) regions with suitable climate for Ae. albopictus in southeastern USA. Non-climatic model processing used Evidential Belief Function (EBF), together with six geographical conditioning factors (raster data layers), to establish the probability index. Validation of the analysis results was estimated with area under the curve (AUC) using Ae. albopictus presence data. Climatic modeling was based on two General Circulation Models (GCMs), Miroc3.2 and CSIRO-MK30 running the RCP 8.5 scenario in MaxEnt software. EBF non-climatic model results achieved a 0.70 prediction rate and 0.73 success rate, confirming suitability of the study site regions for Ae. albopictus establishment. The climatic model results showed the best-fit model comprised Coldest Quarter Mean Temp, Precipitation of Wettest Quarter and Driest Quarter Precipitation factors with mean AUC value of 0.86. Both GCMs showed that the whole study site is highly suitable and will remain suitable climatically, according to the prediction for 2055, for Ae. albopictus expansion. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 13% |
| Ireland | 1 | 13% |
| Mexico | 1 | 13% |
| Belgium | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 4 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 63% |
| Scientists | 2 | 25% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 70 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 12 | 17% |
| Unknown | 26 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 15 | 21% |
| Environmental Science | 6 | 9% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 4% |
| Mathematics | 3 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 10 | 14% |
| Unknown | 31 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 April 2018.
All research outputs
#6,829,981
of 24,464,848 outputs
Outputs from PeerJ
#5,514
of 14,518 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#114,178
of 336,618 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PeerJ
#177
of 376 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,464,848 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,518 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 336,618 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 376 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 53% of its contemporaries.