↓ Skip to main content

Adverse moisture events predict seasonal abundance of Lyme disease vector ticks (Ixodes scapularis)

Overview of attention for article published in Parasites & Vectors, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 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
Adverse moisture events predict seasonal abundance of Lyme disease vector ticks (Ixodes scapularis)
Published in
Parasites & Vectors, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/1756-3305-7-181
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kathryn A Berger, Howard S Ginsberg, Katherine D Dugas, Lutz H Hamel, Thomas N Mather

Abstract

Lyme borreliosis (LB) is the most commonly reported vector-borne disease in north temperate regions worldwide, affecting an estimated 300,000 people annually in the United States alone. The incidence of LB is correlated with human exposure to its vector, the blacklegged tick (Ixodes scapularis). To date, attempts to model tick encounter risk based on environmental parameters have been equivocal. Previous studies have not considered (1) the differences between relative humidity (RH) in leaf litter and at weather stations, (2) the RH threshold that affects nymphal blacklegged tick survival, and (3) the time required below the threshold to induce mortality. We clarify the association between environmental moisture and tick survival by presenting a significant relationship between the total number of tick adverse moisture events (TAMEs - calculated as microclimatic periods below a RH threshold) and tick abundance each year.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Colombia 1 1%
Unknown 78 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 16%
Researcher 13 16%
Student > Master 12 15%
Student > Bachelor 12 15%
Professor 6 8%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 13 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 32 40%
Environmental Science 8 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 8%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 3%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 19 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 30 May 2014.
All research outputs
#1,198,234
of 12,451,686 outputs
Outputs from Parasites & Vectors
#243
of 3,208 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,739
of 192,290 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Parasites & Vectors
#2
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,451,686 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,208 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 192,290 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.