↓ Skip to main content

Unintended Consequences of Conservation Actions: Managing Disease in Complex Ecosystems

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, December 2011
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 (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
286 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
Unintended Consequences of Conservation Actions: Managing Disease in Complex Ecosystems
Published in
PLOS ONE, December 2011
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0028671
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aliénor L. M. Chauvenet, Sarah M. Durant, Ray Hilborn, Nathalie Pettorelli

Abstract

Infectious diseases are increasingly recognised to be a major threat to biodiversity. Disease management tools such as control of animal movements and vaccination can be used to mitigate the impact and spread of diseases in targeted species. They can reduce the risk of epidemics and in turn the risks of population decline and extinction. However, all species are embedded in communities and interactions between species can be complex, hence increasing the chance of survival of one species can have repercussions on the whole community structure. In this study, we use an example from the Serengeti ecosystem in Tanzania to explore how a vaccination campaign against Canine Distemper Virus (CDV) targeted at conserving the African lion (Panthera leo), could affect the viability of a coexisting threatened species, the cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus). Assuming that CDV plays a role in lion regulation, our results suggest that a vaccination programme, if successful, risks destabilising the simple two-species system considered, as simulations show that vaccination interventions could almost double the probability of extinction of an isolated cheetah population over the next 60 years. This work uses a simple example to illustrate how predictive modelling can be a useful tool in examining the consequence of vaccination interventions on non-target species. It also highlights the importance of carefully considering linkages between human-intervention, species viability and community structure when planning species-based conservation actions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 286 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 1%
United States 3 1%
Brazil 2 <1%
United Arab Emirates 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Hong Kong 1 <1%
Turkey 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Other 6 2%
Unknown 265 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 69 24%
Researcher 50 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 45 16%
Student > Bachelor 32 11%
Student > Postgraduate 21 7%
Other 36 13%
Unknown 33 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 144 50%
Environmental Science 57 20%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 10 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 3%
Social Sciences 8 3%
Other 24 8%
Unknown 35 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 22 March 2018.
All research outputs
#3,043,007
of 22,659,164 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#39,930
of 193,435 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,949
of 240,804 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#442
of 2,869 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,659,164 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,435 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 240,804 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2,869 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.