↓ Skip to main content

MORTALITY TRENDS IN NORTHERN SEA OTTERS (ENHYDRA LUTRIS KENYONI) COLLECTED FROM THE COASTS OF WASHINGTON AND OREGON, USA (2002–15)

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Wildlife Diseases, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 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
MORTALITY TRENDS IN NORTHERN SEA OTTERS (ENHYDRA LUTRIS KENYONI) COLLECTED FROM THE COASTS OF WASHINGTON AND OREGON, USA (2002–15)
Published in
Journal of Wildlife Diseases, April 2018
DOI 10.7589/2017-05-122
Pubmed ID
Authors

C. LeAnn White, Emily W. Lankau, Deanna Lynch, Susan Knowles, Krysten L. Schuler, Jitender P. Dubey, Valerie I. Shearn-Bochsler, Marcos Isidoro-Ayza, Nancy J. Thomas

Abstract

During 2002-15 we examined the causes of mortality in a population of northern sea otters ( Enhydra lutris kenyoni). Beachcast sea otters were collected primarily from the coast of Washington. Although there are no permanent sea otter residents in Oregon, several beachcast otters were collected from the Oregon coast. Infectious diseases were the primary cause of death (56%) for otters we examined. Sarcocystosis was the leading infectious cause of death (54%) and was observed throughout the study period. Some infectious diseases, such as morbilliviral encephalitis and leptospirosis, were documented for a limited number of years and then not detected again despite continued testing for these pathogens in necropsied animals. Trauma was the second most common cause of death (14%) during the study period. The continued stable growth of the Washington population of otters suggests they are able to tolerate current mortality rates.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 19%
Unspecified 4 15%
Professor 4 15%
Student > Postgraduate 4 15%
Other 3 12%
Other 8 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 10 38%
Unspecified 6 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 15%
Environmental Science 2 8%
Other 1 4%

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 04 October 2018.
All research outputs
#11,337,155
of 12,745,229 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Wildlife Diseases
#655
of 732 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#297,131
of 347,962 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Wildlife Diseases
#16
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,745,229 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 732 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 347,962 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.