↓ Skip to main content

Managing crop damage caused by house mice (Mus domesticus) in Australia

Overview of attention for article published in Integrative Zoology, March 2010
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
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
Managing crop damage caused by house mice (Mus domesticus) in Australia
Published in
Integrative Zoology, March 2010
DOI 10.1111/j.1749-4877.2010.00188.x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shahram KABOODVANDPOUR, Luke K.‐P. LEUNG

Abstract

A large-scale outbreak of the house mouse populations occurs in grain growing in Australia on average once every four years. High densities of mice cause major yield losses to cereal crops, and low to moderate densities of mice also cause some losses. Several predictive models based on rainfall patterns have been developed to forecast mouse density. These models carry some uncertainty and the economic value of basing management actions on these models is not clear. Baiting is the most commonly used method and zinc phosphide and other rodenticide bait are effective in reducing up to 90% of mouse populations. Ecologically-based best farming practice for controlling mice has recently been developed on the basis of long-term field studies of mouse populations. No effective biological control method has been developed for mice. However, grain growers still cannot make economically rational decisions to implement control because they do not know the pest threshold density (D(T)) above which the economic benefits of control exceed the economic costs of control. Applied predator-prey theory suggests that understanding the relationship between mouse density and damage is the basis for determining D(T). Understanding this relationship is the first research priority for managing mouse damage. The other research priority is to develop a reliable method to estimate unbiased mouse density.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 32%
Student > Master 2 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Other 3 16%
Unknown 4 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 42%
Environmental Science 3 16%
Social Sciences 2 11%
Unknown 6 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 07 August 2012.
All research outputs
#17,285,036
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Integrative Zoology
#355
of 567 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,332
of 102,927 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Integrative Zoology
#4
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 567 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 102,927 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.