| Title |
Evidence supporting that human-subsidized free-ranging dogs are the main cause of animal losses in small-scale farms in Chile
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Ambio, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13280-018-1066-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Diego Montecino-Latorre, William San Martín |
| Abstract |
We surveyed professionals from the Chilean Ministry of Agriculture working with small-scale farmers to characterize the attacks of free-ranging dogs across Chile. Nationwide, in a single year, free-ranging dogs attacked 25% of the ca. 8500 farms included in the survey, killing or injuring about 10 000 small ruminants. These dogs were ranked as the main cause of animal losses for small-scale farmers, representing a threat to the livelihoods of this vulnerable group. Further, free-ranging dogs attacking small ruminants were considered as human-subsidized, since they would be recruited by irresponsible ownership and abandonment from urban centers. This is the first national assessment reporting that human-subsidized dogs are a main threat to livestock rearing. Policies to control populations of these animals should target their anthropogenic origin as well as cultural shifts in dog ownership and animal welfare. While these policies may be effective mid- to long-term approaches, short-term actions may also be needed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 73 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chile | 26 | 36% |
| United States | 4 | 5% |
| India | 2 | 3% |
| Canada | 2 | 3% |
| Argentina | 1 | 1% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| China | 1 | 1% |
| Myanmar | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 34 | 47% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 66 | 90% |
| Scientists | 6 | 8% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 105 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 18 | 17% |
| Researcher | 15 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 5% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 20 | 19% |
| Unknown | 29 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 28 | 27% |
| Environmental Science | 16 | 15% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 14 | 13% |
| Unspecified | 5 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 6% |
| Unknown | 33 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 70. 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 24 January 2024.
All research outputs
#623,793
of 25,709,917 outputs
Outputs from Ambio
#75
of 1,844 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,443
of 342,839 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ambio
#2
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,709,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,844 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.4. 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 342,839 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.