↓ Skip to main content

Treat Yourself: Pilot Testing a New Method to Treat Mange in Wild Carnivores

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Wildlife Diseases, April 2024
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
4 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.
Article details
Title
Treat Yourself: Pilot Testing a New Method to Treat Mange in Wild Carnivores
Published in
Journal of Wildlife Diseases, April 2024
DOI 10.7589/jwd-d-23-00075
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Mange is a skin disease caused by mites that parasitize an animal's skin, often yielding inflamed immune responses and hair loss. At a population level, mange may reduce survival and cause population declines. Many forms of mange can be treated quite effectively when an animal is in hand; however, this is not often feasible for many free-ranging wildlife populations. Some animals, particularly territorial carnivores, will rub or roll to scent mark and transmit information about their presence to other individuals. We posited that rub stations comprised, in part, of anthelmintic medication and foreign scents that induce rubbing could be used to remotely treat mange in the wild. We deployed 39 rub stations containing lure and dye in Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, Southern California, October-November 2022. Carnivores rubbed or rolled at >97% of rub stations, with coyotes (Canis latrans), gray foxes (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), and bobcats (Lynx rufus) being the most abundant species. Time to first rub or roll was generally <1 wk. Several sympatric species (e.g., mule deer, Odocoileus hemionus) were detected at rub stations but did not rub. Our pilot test provides strong evidence that treating mange in wild carnivores may be possible using the remote medicinal rub stations we describe. Future efforts to add medicine to rub stations and monitor for a change in mange prevalence are a logical next step.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
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 demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 4 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 4 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 25%
Student > Postgraduate 1 25%
Student > Master 1 25%
Unknown 1 25%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 75%
Unknown 1 25%
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 31 January 2024.
All research outputs
#24,775,808
of 34,387,656 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Wildlife Diseases
#2,006
of 2,509 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,648
of 377,905 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Wildlife Diseases
#9
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,387,656 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,509 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 377,905 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.