↓ Skip to main content

Pathogen exposure varies widely among sympatric populations of wild and domestic felids across the United States

Overview of attention for article published in Ecological Applications, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
10 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
Pathogen exposure varies widely among sympatric populations of wild and domestic felids across the United States
Published in
Ecological Applications, April 2016
DOI 10.1890/15-0445.1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Scott Carver, Sarah N. Bevins, Michael R. Lappin, Erin E. Boydston, Lisa M. Lyren, Mathew Alldredge, Kenneth A. Logan, Linda L. Sweanor, Seth P. D. Riley, Laurel E. K. Serieys, Robert N. Fisher, T. Winston Vickers, Walter Boyce, Roy McBride, Mark C. Cunningham, Megan Jennings, Jesse Lewis, Tamika Lunn, Kevin R. Crooks, Sue VandeWoude

Abstract

Understanding how landscape, host, and pathogen traits contribute to disease exposure requires systematic evaluations of pathogens within and among host species and geographic regions. The relative importance of these attributes is critical for management of wildlife and mitigating domestic animal and human disease, particularly given rapid ecological changes, such as urbanization. We screened > 1000 samples from sympatric populations of puma (Puma concolor), bobcat (Lynx rufus), and domestic cat (Felis catus) across urban gradients in six sites, representing three regions, in North America for exposure to a representative suite of bacterial, protozoal, and viral pathogens (Bartonella sp., Toxoplasma gondii, feline herpesvirus-1, feline panleukopenea virus, feline calicivirus, and feline immunodeficiency virus). We evaluated prevalence within each species, and examined host trait and land cover determinants of exposure; providing an unprecedented analysis of factors relating to potential for infections in domesticated and wild felids. Prevalence differed among host species (highest for puma and lowest for domestic cat) and was greater for indirectly transmitted pathogens. Sex was inconsistently predictive of exposure to directly transmitted pathogens only, and age infrequently predictive of both direct and indirectly transmitted pathogens. Determinants of pathogen exposure were widely divergent between the wild felid species. For puma, suburban land use predicted increased exposure to Bartonella sp. in southern California, and FHV-1 exposure increased near urban edges in Florida. This may suggest interspecific transmission with domestic cats via flea vectors (California) and direct contact (Florida) around urban boundaries. Bobcats captured near urban areas had increased exposure to T. gondii in Florida, suggesting an urban source of prey Bobcats captured near urban areas in Colorado and Florida had higher FIV exposure, possibly suggesting increased intraspecific interactions through pile-up of home ranges. Beyond these regional and pathogen specific relationships, proximity to the wildland-urban interface did not generally increase the probability of disease exposure in wild or domestic felids, empha- sizing the importance of local ecological determinants. Indeed, pathogen exposure was often negatively associated with the wildland-urban interface for all felids. Our analyses suggest cross-species pathogen transmission events around this interface may be infrequent, but followed by self-sustaining propagation within the new host species. virus; puma (Puma concolor); Toxoplasma gondii; urbanization.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 40%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 20%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 10%
Other 1 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 60%
Environmental Science 2 20%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 10%
Engineering 1 10%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 16 June 2016.
All research outputs
#16,721,717
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Ecological Applications
#2,838
of 3,326 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#184,018
of 315,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ecological Applications
#24
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,326 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.5. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 315,721 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.