Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30673712›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

The impact of human activities on Australian wildlife.

Alyce Taylor-Brown, Rosie Booth, Amber Gillett, Erica Mealy, Steven M Ogbourne, Adam Polkinghorne, Gabriel C Conroy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing 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

37 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Detection of amoxicillin-resistant and multidrug-resistantMicrobiology (Reading, England) · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Echocardiographic Examination of 16 Eastern Grey Kangaroos (Macropus giganteus) and One Red Kangaroo (Osphranter rufus).Veterinary radiology & ultrasound : the official journal of the American College of Veterinary Radiology and the International Veterinary Radiology Association · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Common Causes for Veterinary Visits among Australian Wildlife.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Alyce Taylor-BrownGenecology Research Centre, University of the Sunshine Coast, Maroochydore, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0396-1275
Rosie BoothAustralia Zoo Wildlife Hospital, Beerwah, Queensland, Australia.
Amber GillettAustralia Zoo Wildlife Hospital, Beerwah, Queensland, Australia.
Erica MealyFaculty of Arts, Business and Law, University of the Sunshine Coast, Maroochydore, Queensland, Australia.
Steven M OgbourneGenecology Research Centre, University of the Sunshine Coast, Maroochydore, Queensland, Australia.
Adam PolkinghorneAnimal Research Centre, University of the Sunshine Coast, Maroochydore, Queensland, Australia.
Gabriel C ConroyGenecology Research Centre, University of the Sunshine Coast, Maroochydore, Queensland, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Increasing human population size and the concomitant expansion of urbanisation significantly impact natural ecosystems and native fauna globally. Successful conservation management relies on precise information on the factors associated with wildlife population decline, which are challenging to acquire from natural populations. Wildlife Rehabilitation Centres (WRC) provide a rich source of this information. However, few researchers have conducted large-scale longitudinal studies, with most focussing on narrow taxonomic ranges, suggesting that WRC-associated data remains an underutilised resource, and may provide a fuller understanding of the anthropogenic threats facing native fauna. We analysed admissions and outcomes data from a WRC in Queensland, Australia Zoo Wildlife Hospital, to determine the major factors driving admissions and morbidity of native animals in a region experiencing rapid and prolonged urban expansion. We studied 31,626 admissions of 83 different species of native birds, reptiles, amphibians, marsupials and eutherian mammals from 2006 to 2017. While marsupial admissions were highest (41.3%), admissions increased over time for all species and exhibited seasonal variation (highest in Spring to Summer), consistent with known breeding seasons. Causes for admission typically associated with human influenced activities were dominant and exhibited the highest mortality rates. Car strikes were the most common reason for admission (34.7%), with dog attacks (9.2%), entanglements (7.2%), and cat attacks (5.3%) also high. Admissions of orphaned young and overt signs of disease were significant at 24.6% and 9.7%, respectively. Mortality rates were highest following dog attacks (72.7%) and car strikes (69.1%) and lowest in orphaned animals (22.1%). Our results show that WRC databases offer rich opportunities for wildlife monitoring and provide quantification of the negative impacts of human activities on ecosystem stability and wildlife health. The imminent need for urgent, proactive conservation management to ameliorate the negative impacts of human activities on wildlife is clearly evident from our results.

Indexed as

Human ActivitiesAnimalsAnimals, WildAnimals, ZooAustraliaGeographyHospitals, AnimalHumansOdds RatioRiskSeasonsSpecies Specificity

Identifiers

PMID30673712
PMCPMC6344025

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.