Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26197236›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Efficacy of Visual Surveys for White-Nose Syndrome at Bat Hibernacula.

Amanda F Janicki, Winifred F Frick, A Marm Kilpatrick, Katy L Parise, Jeffrey T Foster, Gary F McCracken

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The scope and severity of white-nose syndrome on hibernating bats in North America.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2021
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Determinants ofThe Journal of applied ecology · 2018
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Amanda F JanickiDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, United States of America.
Winifred F FrickDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, California, United States of America.
A Marm KilpatrickDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, California, United States of America.
Katy L PariseCenter for Microbial Genetics and Genomics, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona, United States of America.
Jeffrey T FosterCenter for Microbial Genetics and Genomics, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona, United States of America.
Gary F McCrackenDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

HibernationAnimalsAscomycotaChiropteraDermatomycosesGeographyLinear ModelsReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionSeasonsSoutheastern United StatesSpecies Specificity

Identifiers

PMID26197236
PMCPMC4509758

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.