Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28490331›Full record

ArticleBMC veterinary research2017

Quantifying capture stress in free ranging European roe deer (Capreolus capreolus).

Nikolaus Huber, Sebastian G Vetter, Alina L Evans, Petter Kjellander, Susanne Küker, Ulrika A Bergvall, Jon M Arnemo

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC veterinary research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Hematological and Serum Biochemical Values of Free-Ranging Roe Deer (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Stress Assessment of Wild Boar (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Blood L-Lactate Concentration as an Indicator of Outcome in Roe Deer (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2020
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Nikolaus HuberDepartment of Integrative Biology and Evolution, Research Institute of Wildlife Ecology, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria. Nikolaus.Huber@vetmeduni.ac.at.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2371-5645
Sebastian G VetterDepartment of Integrative Biology and Evolution, Research Institute of Wildlife Ecology, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria.
Alina L EvansDepartment of Forestry and Wildlife Management, Faculty of Applied Ecology and Agricultural Sciences, Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, Campus Evenstad, NO-2418, Elverum, Norway.
Petter KjellanderDepartment of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Grimsö Wildlife Research Station, SE-730 91, Riddarhyttan, Sweden.
Susanne KükerDepartment of Forestry and Wildlife Management, Faculty of Applied Ecology and Agricultural Sciences, Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, Campus Evenstad, NO-2418, Elverum, Norway.
Ulrika A BergvallDepartment of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Grimsö Wildlife Research Station, SE-730 91, Riddarhyttan, Sweden.
Jon M ArnemoDepartment of Forestry and Wildlife Management, Faculty of Applied Ecology and Agricultural Sciences, Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, Campus Evenstad, NO-2418, Elverum, Norway.
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences · SEUniversity of Veterinary Medicine Vienna · ATStockholm University · SEUniversity of Bern · CHUniversity of Inland Norway · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo understand and reduce the concomitant effects of trapping and handling procedures in wildlife species, it is essential to measure their physiological impact. Here, we examined individual variation in stress levels in non-anesthetized European roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), which were captured in box traps and physically restrained for tagging, biometrics and bio-sampling. In winter 2013, we collected venous blood samples from 28 individuals during 28 capture events and evaluated standard measurements for stress (heart rate, body temperature, neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio, lactate and total cortisol). Additionally, we assessed stress using the immunological tool, Leukocyte Coping Capacity (LCC), a real-time proxy for stress measuring oxygen radical production by leukocytes. Finally, the behavioral response to handling was recorded using a scoring system.

resultsLCC and therefore stress levels were negatively influenced by the time animals spent in the box trap with human presence at the capture site prior to handling. In contrast, none of the classical stress measures, including total cortisol, nor the behavioral assessment, were correlated with the stressor tested (time of human presence prior to handling) and thus did not provide a clear depiction regarding the extent of the animals short-term stress response.

conclusionsOverall our study verifies the LCC as a strong method to quantify short-term stress reactions in wildlife. Moreover, our results clearly show that human presence at the trapping site prior to handling should be kept to an absolute minimum in order to reduce stress levels.

Indexed as

Stress, PhysiologicalStress, PsychologicalAnimalsAnimals, WildBody TemperatureDeerFemaleHeart RateLeukocyte CountRestraint, PhysicalCoping styleCortisolLeukocyte coping capacityStressWildlife

Identifiers

PMID28490331
PMCPMC5424289
OpenAlexW2613799696

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.