↓ Skip to main content

A SEROSURVEY OF DISEASES OF FREE-RANGING GRAY WOLVES (CANIS LUPUS) IN MINNESOTA, USA

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Wildlife Diseases, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 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
A SEROSURVEY OF DISEASES OF FREE-RANGING GRAY WOLVES (CANIS LUPUS) IN MINNESOTA, USA
Published in
Journal of Wildlife Diseases, July 2017
DOI 10.7589/2016-06-140
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michelle Carstensen, John H. Giudice, Erik C. Hildebrand, J. P. Dubey, John Erb, Dan Stark, John Hart, Shannon Barber-Meyer, L. David Mech, Steve K. Windels, Andrew J. Edwards

Abstract

We tested serum samples from 387 free-ranging wolves ( Canis lupus ) from 2007 to 2013 for exposure to eight canid pathogens to establish baseline data on disease prevalence and spatial distribution in Minnesota's wolf population. We found high exposure to canine adenoviruses 1 and 2 (88% adults, 45% pups), canine parvovirus (82% adults, 24% pups), and Lyme disease (76% adults, 39% pups). Sixty-six percent of adults and 36% of pups exhibited exposure to the protozoan parasite Neospora caninum . Exposure to arboviruses was confirmed, including West Nile virus (37% adults, 18% pups) and eastern equine encephalitis (3% adults). Exposure rates were lower for canine distemper (19% adults, 5% pups) and heartworm (7% adults, 3% pups). Significant spatial trends were observed in wolves exposed to canine parvovirus and Lyme disease. Serologic data do not confirm clinical disease, but better understanding of disease ecology of wolves can provide valuable insight into wildlife population dynamics and improve management of these species.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Austria 1 2%
Unknown 56 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 26%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Other 5 9%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 11 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 19 33%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 24%
Environmental Science 4 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 12 21%

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 29 March 2017.
All research outputs
#6,978,596
of 12,571,426 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Wildlife Diseases
#412
of 534 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,716
of 252,021 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Wildlife Diseases
#6
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,571,426 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 534 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 252,021 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.