| Title |
Impact of Sylvatic Plague Vaccine on Non-target Small Rodents in Grassland Ecosystems
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
EcoHealth, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10393-018-1334-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gebbiena M. Bron, Katherine L. D. Richgels, Michael D. Samuel, Julia E. Poje, Faye Lorenzsonn, Jonathan P. Matteson, Jesse T. Boulerice, Jorge E. Osorio, Tonie E. Rocke |
| Abstract |
Oral vaccination is an emerging management strategy to reduce the prevalence of high impact infectious diseases within wild animal populations. Plague is a flea-borne zoonosis of rodents that often decimates prairie dog (Cynomys spp.) colonies in the western USA. Recently, an oral sylvatic plague vaccine (SPV) was developed to protect prairie dogs from plague and aid recovery of the endangered black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes). Although oral vaccination programs are targeted toward specific species, field distribution of vaccine-laden baits can result in vaccine uptake by non-target animals and unintended indirect effects. We assessed the impact of SPV on non-target rodents at paired vaccine and placebo-treated prairie dog colonies in four US states from 2013 to 2015. Bait consumption by non-target rodents was high (70.8%, n = 3113), but anti-plague antibody development on vaccine plots was low (23.7%, n = 266). In addition, no significant differences were noted in combined deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus) and western harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys megalotis) abundance or community evenness and richness of non-target rodents between vaccine-treated and placebo plots. In our 3-year field study, we could not detect a significant positive or negative effect of SPV application on non-target rodents. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 50% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
| Scientists | 2 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 25 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 16% |
| Researcher | 4 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 16% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 5 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 32% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 4 | 16% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Unknown | 5 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 11 October 2018.
All research outputs
#2,625,975
of 24,677,985 outputs
Outputs from EcoHealth
#154
of 729 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,309
of 332,590 outputs
Outputs of similar age from EcoHealth
#7
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,677,985 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 729 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 332,590 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.