ArticlePloS one2020
Molecular species identification of bushmeat recovered from the Serengeti ecosystem in Tanzania.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Illegal urban wild meat supply chain characterization: A case study on zoonosis in Lusaka, Zambia.PloS one · 2026Article
- Bushmeat, wet markets, and the risks of pandemics: Exploring the nexus through systematic review of scientific disclosures.Environmental science & policy · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bushmeat harvesting and consumption represents a potential risk for the spillover of endemic zoonotic pathogens, yet remains a common practice in many parts of the world. Given that the harvesting and selling of bushmeat is illegal in Tanzania and other parts of Africa, the supply chain is informal and may include hunters, whole-sellers, retailers, and individual resellers who typically sell bushmeat in small pieces. These pieces are often further processed, obscuring species-identifying morphological characteristics, contributing to incomplete or mistaken knowledge of species of origin and potentially confounding assessments of pathogen spillover risk and bushmeat offtake. The current investigation sought to identify the species of origin and assess the concordance between seller-reported and laboratory-confirmed species of origin of bushmeat harvested from in and around the Serengeti National Park in Tanzania. After obtaining necessary permits, the species of origin of a total of 151 bushmeat samples purchased from known intermediaries from 2016 to 2018 were characterized by PCR and sequence analysis of the cytochrome B (CytB) gene. Based on these sequence analyses, 30%, 95% Confidence Interval (CI: 24.4-38.6) of bushmeat samples were misidentified by sellers. Misreporting amongst the top five source species (wildebeest, buffalo, impala, zebra, and giraffe) ranged from 20% (CI: 11.4-33.2) for samples reported as wildebeest to 47% (CI: 22.2-72.7) for samples reported as zebra although there was no systematic bias in reporting. Our findings suggest that while misreporting errors are unlikely to confound wildlife offtake estimates for bushmeat consumption within the Serengeti ecosystem, the role of misreporting bias on the risk of spillover events of endemic zoonotic infections from bushmeat requires further investigation.
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.