↓ Skip to main content

Land-Use Change Alters Host and Vector Communities and May Elevate Disease Risk

Overview of attention for article published in EcoHealth, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
111 Mendeley
Title
Land-Use Change Alters Host and Vector Communities and May Elevate Disease Risk
Published in
EcoHealth, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10393-018-1336-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fengyi Guo, Timothy C. Bonebrake, Luke Gibson

Abstract

Land-use change has transformed most of the planet. Concurrently, recent outbreaks of various emerging infectious diseases have raised great attention to the health consequences of anthropogenic environmental degradation. Here, we assessed the global impacts of habitat conversion and other land-use changes on community structures of infectious disease hosts and vectors, using a meta-analysis of 37 studies. From 331 pairwise comparisons of disease hosts/vectors in pristine (undisturbed) and disturbed areas, we found a decrease in species diversity but an increase in body size associated with land-use changes, potentially suggesting higher risk of infectious disease transmission in disturbed habitats. Neither host nor vector abundance, however, changed significantly following disturbance. When grouped by subcategories like disturbance type, taxonomic group, pathogen type and region, changes in host/vector community composition varied considerably. Fragmentation and agriculture in particular benefit host and vector communities and therefore might elevate disease risk. Our results indicate that while habitat disturbance could alter disease host/vector communities in ways that exacerbate pathogen prevalence, the relationship is highly context-dependent and influenced by multiple factors.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 111 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 14%
Student > Bachelor 16 14%
Student > Master 15 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 26 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 25 23%
Environmental Science 17 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 9%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 8 7%
Engineering 3 3%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 34 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 29 April 2018.
All research outputs
#7,306,728
of 23,045,021 outputs
Outputs from EcoHealth
#356
of 710 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,622
of 326,487 outputs
Outputs of similar age from EcoHealth
#10
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,045,021 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
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 14.8. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 326,487 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 60% of its contemporaries.
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 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.