Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33572837›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021

Biases in the Detection of Intentionally Poisoned Animals: Public Health and Conservation Implications from a Field Experiment.

José M Gil-Sánchez, Natividad Aguilera-Alcalá, Marcos Moleón, Esther Sebastián-González, Antoni Margalida, Zebensui Morales-Reyes, Carlos J Durá-Alemañ, Pilar Oliva-Vidal, Juan M Pérez-García, José A Sánchez-Zapata

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Editorial: Animal Poisoning and Biomarkers of Toxicity.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2022
    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

10 authors.

José M Gil-SánchezDepartment of Applied Biology, Miguel Hernández University, Avda. de la Universidad, s/n, E-03202 Elche, Spain.
Natividad Aguilera-AlcaláDepartment of Applied Biology, Miguel Hernández University, Avda. de la Universidad, s/n, E-03202 Elche, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-9908-1901
Marcos MoleónDepartment of Zoology, University of Granada, Avda. de Fuente Nueva, s/n, 18071 Granada, Spain.
Esther Sebastián-GonzálezDepartment of Applied Biology, Miguel Hernández University, Avda. de la Universidad, s/n, E-03202 Elche, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-7229-1845
Antoni MargalidaInstitute for Game and Wildlife Research, IREC (CSIC-UCLM-JCCM), E-13005 Ciudad Real, Spain.
Zebensui Morales-ReyesDepartment of Applied Biology, Miguel Hernández University, Avda. de la Universidad, s/n, E-03202 Elche, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-4529-8651
Carlos J Durá-AlemañInternational Center for Environmental Law Studies, CIEDA-CIEMAT, Bernardo Robles Square 9, 42002 Soria, Spain.
Pilar Oliva-VidalInstitute for Game and Wildlife Research, IREC (CSIC-UCLM-JCCM), E-13005 Ciudad Real, Spain.
Juan M Pérez-GarcíaDepartment of Applied Biology, Miguel Hernández University, Avda. de la Universidad, s/n, E-03202 Elche, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-1191-0187
José A Sánchez-ZapataDepartment of Applied Biology, Miguel Hernández University, Avda. de la Universidad, s/n, E-03202 Elche, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Intentional poisoning is a global wildlife problem and an overlooked risk factor for public health. Managing poisoning requires unbiased and high-quality data through wildlife monitoring protocols, which are largely lacking. We herein evaluated the biases associated with current monitoring programmes of wildlife poisoning in Spain. We compared the national poisoning database for the 1990-2015 period with information obtained from a field experiment during which we used camera-traps to detect the species that consumed non-poisoned baits. Our findings suggest that the detection rate of poisoned animals is species-dependent: Several animal groups (e.g., domestic mammalian carnivores and vultures) tended to be over-represented in the poisoning national database, while others (e.g., corvids and small mammals) were underrepresented. As revealed by the GLMM analyses, the probability of a given species being overrepresented was higher for heaviest, aerial, and cryptic species. In conclusion, we found that monitoring poisoned fauna based on heterogeneous sources may produce important biases in detection rates; thus, such information should be used with caution by managers and policy-makers. Our findings may guide to future search efforts aimed to reach a more comprehensive understanding of the intentional wildlife poisoning problem.

Indexed as

PoisonsAnimalsAnimals, WildBiasConservation of Natural ResourcesPublic HealthSpainPoisonshuman-wildlife conflictpredator controlpublic healthvultureswildlife conservationwildlife poisoning

Identifiers

PMID33572837
PMCPMC7908198

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.