↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of Selective Culling of Infected Individuals to Control Tasmanian Devil Facial Tumor Disease

Overview of attention for article published in Conservation Biology, May 2010
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 (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
6 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
70 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
connotea
1 Connotea
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
Evaluation of Selective Culling of Infected Individuals to Control Tasmanian Devil Facial Tumor Disease
Published in
Conservation Biology, May 2010
DOI 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01429.x
Pubmed ID
Authors

SHELLY LACHISH, HAMISH McCALLUM, DYDEE MANN, CHRISSY E. PUKK, MENNA E. JONES

Abstract

Sustainable strategies to manage infectious diseases in threatened wildlife are still lacking despite considerable concern over the global increase in emerging infectious diseases of wildlife and their potential to drive populations to extinction. Selective culling of infected individuals will often be the most feasible option to control infectious disease in a threatened wildlife host, but has seldom been implemented or evaluated as a management tool for the conservation of threatened species. The Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii) is threatened with extinction by an infectious cancer, devil facial tumor disease (DFTD). We assess the success of an adaptive management trial involving selective culling of infected Tasmanian devils to control DFTD. Demographic and epidemiological parameters indicative of disease progression and impact were compared between the management site and a comparable unmanaged control site. Selective culling of infected individuals neither slowed rate of disease progression nor reduced population-level impacts of this debilitating disease. Culling mortality simply compensated for disease mortality in this system. Failure of selective culling to impede DFTD progress and reduce its impacts in the managed population was attributed to DFTD's frequency-dependent nature, its long latent period and high degree of infectivity, and the presence of a cryptic hidden disease reservoir or continual immigration of diseased individuals. We suggest that increasing the current removal rate and focusing removal efforts prior to the breeding season are options worth pursuing for future management of DFTD in this population. On the basis of our experience, we suggest that disease-management programs for threatened wildlife populations be developed on the principles of adaptive management and utilize a wide variety of strategies with regular reviews and adaptation of strategies undertaken as new information is obtained.

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 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 57 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 14%
Student > Bachelor 7 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 5%
Student > Master 3 5%
Other 2 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 35 60%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 29%
Environmental Science 3 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 2%
Unknown 35 60%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 48. 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 01 November 2018.
All research outputs
#832,512
of 24,717,821 outputs
Outputs from Conservation Biology
#471
of 3,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,328
of 100,217 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Conservation Biology
#1
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,717,821 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,991 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 100,217 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 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 99% of its contemporaries.