Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27893809›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Model of Selective and Non-Selective Management of Badgers (Meles meles) to Control Bovine Tuberculosis in Badgers and Cattle.

Graham C Smith, Richard J Delahay, Robbie A McDonald, Richard Budgey

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Effect of selective removal of badgers (Epidemiology and infection · 2021
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Graham C SmithNational Wildlife Management Centre, Animal and Plant Health Agency, Sand Hutton, York, United Kingdom.
Richard J DelahayNational Wildlife Management Centre, Animal and Plant Health Agency, Sand Hutton, York, United Kingdom.
Robbie A McDonaldEnvironment and Sustainability Institute, University of Exeter, Penryn Campus, Penryn, Cornwall, United Kingdom.
Richard BudgeyNational Wildlife Management Centre, Animal and Plant Health Agency, Sand Hutton, York, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9938-2584
Animal and Plant Health Agency · GBUniversity of Exeter · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bovine tuberculosis (bTB) causes substantial economic losses to cattle farmers and taxpayers in the British Isles. Disease management in cattle is complicated by the role of the European badger (Meles meles) as a host of the infection. Proactive, non-selective culling of badgers can reduce the incidence of disease in cattle but may also have negative effects in the area surrounding culls that have been associated with social perturbation of badger populations. The selective removal of infected badgers would, in principle, reduce the number culled, but the effects of selective culling on social perturbation and disease outcomes are unclear. We used an established model to simulate non-selective badger culling, non-selective badger vaccination and a selective trap and vaccinate or remove (TVR) approach to badger management in two distinct areas: South West England and Northern Ireland. TVR was simulated with and without social perturbation in effect. The lower badger density in Northern Ireland caused no qualitative change in the effect of management strategies on badgers, although the absolute number of infected badgers was lower in all cases. However, probably due to differing herd density in Northern Ireland, the simulated badger management strategies caused greater variation in subsequent cattle bTB incidence. Selective culling in the model reduced the number of badgers killed by about 83% but this only led to an overall benefit for cattle TB incidence if there was no social perturbation of badgers. We conclude that the likely benefit of selective culling will be dependent on the social responses of badgers to intervention but that other population factors including badger and cattle density had little effect on the relative benefits of selective culling compared to other methods, and that this may also be the case for disease management in other wild host populations.

Indexed as

AnimalsCattleComputer SimulationDisease ReservoirsEnglandIncidenceMustelidaeMycobacterium bovisTuberculosis, BovineTuberculosis VaccinesVaccinationTuberculosis Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID27893809
PMCPMC5125688
OpenAlexW2558530093

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.