↓ Skip to main content

Ecological Monitoring and Health Research in Luambe National Park, Zambia: Generation of Baseline Data Layers

Overview of attention for article published in EcoHealth, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
Title
Ecological Monitoring and Health Research in Luambe National Park, Zambia: Generation of Baseline Data Layers
Published in
EcoHealth, June 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10393-016-1131-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Neil E. Anderson, Paul R. Bessell, Joseph Mubanga, Robert Thomas, Mark C. Eisler, Eric M. Fèvre, Susan C. Welburn

Abstract

Classifying, describing and understanding the natural environment is an important element of studies of human, animal and ecosystem health, and baseline ecological data are commonly lacking in remote environments of the world. Human African trypanosomiasis is an important constraint on human well-being in sub-Saharan Africa, and spillover transmission occurs from the reservoir community of wild mammals. Here we use robust and repeatable methodology to generate baseline datasets on vegetation and mammal density to investigate the ecology of warthogs (Phacochoerus africanus) in the remote Luambe National Park in Zambia, in order to further our understanding of their interactions with tsetse (Glossina spp.) vectors of trypanosomiasis. Fuzzy set theory is used to produce an accurate landcover classification, and distance sampling techniques are applied to obtain species and habitat level density estimates for the most abundant wild mammals. The density of warthog burrows is also estimated and their spatial distribution mapped. The datasets generated provide an accurate baseline to further ecological and epidemiological understanding of disease systems such as trypanosomiasis. This study provides a reliable framework for ecological monitoring of wild mammal densities and vegetation composition in remote, relatively inaccessible environments.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 19%
Other 5 10%
Student > Master 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 11 21%
Unknown 9 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 35%
Social Sciences 6 12%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 5 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 10%
Environmental Science 4 8%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 12 23%
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 12 April 2018.
All research outputs
#7,210,688
of 23,798,792 outputs
Outputs from EcoHealth
#338
of 717 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,669
of 356,091 outputs
Outputs of similar age from EcoHealth
#7
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,798,792 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 717 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 356,091 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.