ArticlePloS one2015
Efficacy of Visual Surveys for White-Nose Syndrome at Bat Hibernacula.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- A novel method for estimating pathogen presence, prevalence, load, and dynamics at multiple scales.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Experimental inoculation trial to determine the effects of temperature and humidity on White-nose Syndrome in hibernating bats.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- The scope and severity of white-nose syndrome on hibernating bats in North America.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2021Article
- Hibernacula microclimate and declines in overwintering bats during an outbreak of white-nose syndrome near the northern range limit of infection in North America.Ecology and evolution · 2021Article
- Phylogeographic analysis of Pseudogymnoascus destructans partitivirus-pa explains the spread dynamics of white-nose syndrome in North America.PLoS pathogens · 2021Article
- Multiscale model of regional population decline in little brown bats due to white-nose syndrome.Ecology and evolution · 2019Article
- Long-term bat abundance in sagebrush steppe.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Determinants ofThe Journal of applied ecology · 2018Article
- Winter behavior of bats and the progression of white-nose syndrome in the southeastern United States.Ecology and evolution · 2017Article
- Host persistence or extinction from emerging infectious disease: insights from white-nose syndrome in endemic and invading regions.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2016Article
- Article
- White-nose syndrome without borders: Pseudogymnoascus destructans infection tolerated in Europe and Palearctic Asia but not in North America.Scientific reports · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
White-Nose Syndrome (WNS) is an epizootic disease in hibernating bats caused by the fungus Pseudogymnoascus destructans. Surveillance for P. destructans at bat hibernacula consists primarily of visual surveys of bats, collection of potentially infected bats, and submission of these bats for laboratory testing. Cryptic infections (bats that are infected but display no visual signs of fungus) could lead to the mischaracterization of the infection status of a site and the inadvertent spread of P. destructans. We determined the efficacy of visual detection of P. destructans by examining visual signs and molecular detection of P. destructans on 928 bats of six species at 27 sites during surveys conducted from January through March in 2012-2014 in the southeastern USA on the leading edge of the disease invasion. Cryptic infections were widespread with 77% of bats that tested positive by qPCR showing no visible signs of infection. The probability of exhibiting visual signs of infection increased with sampling date and pathogen load, the latter of which was substantially higher in three species (Myotis lucifugus, M. septentrionalis, and Perimyotis subflavus). In addition, M. lucifugus was more likely to show visual signs of infection than other species given the same pathogen load. Nearly all infections were cryptic in three species (Eptesicus fuscus, M. grisescens, and M. sodalis), which had much lower fungal loads. The presence of M. lucifugus or M. septentrionalis at a site increased the probability that P. destructans was visually detected on bats. Our results suggest that cryptic infections of P. destructans are common in all bat species, and visible infections rarely occur in some species. However, due to very high infection prevalence and loads in some species, we estimate that visual surveys examining at least 17 individuals of M. lucifugus and M. septentrionalis, or 29 individuals of P. subflavus are still effective to determine whether a site has bats infected with P. destructans. In addition, because the probability of visually detecting the fungus was higher later in winter, surveys should be done as close to the end of the hibernation period as possible.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.