Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33705434›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

A comparison of fragmenting lead-based and lead-free bullets for aerial shooting of wild pigs.

Jordan O Hampton, Grant Eccles, Rob Hunt, Andrew J Bengsen, Andrew L Perry, Steve Parker, Corissa J Miller, Steve K Joslyn, Sigbjørn Stokke, Jon M Arnemo and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

11 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Jordan O HamptonFaculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0472-3241
Grant EcclesNew South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service, Hurstville, New South Wales, Australia.
Rob HuntNew South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service, Hurstville, New South Wales, Australia.
Andrew J BengsenVertebrate Pest Research Unit, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Orange, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2205-4416
Andrew L PerryFaculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia.
Steve ParkerNew South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service, Hurstville, New South Wales, Australia.
Corissa J MillerFaculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia.
Steve K JoslynVetDB, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Sigbjørn StokkeNorwegian Institute for Nature Research, Trondheim, Norway.
Jon M ArnemoDepartment of Forestry and Wildlife Management, Faculty of Applied Ecology and Agricultural Sciences, Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, Koppang, Norway.
Quentin HartNew South Wales Department of Primary Industries, Queanbeyan, New South Wales, Australia.
National Parks and Wildlife Service · AUThe University of Melbourne · AUNew South Wales Department of Primary Industries · AUNorwegian Institute for Nature Research · NOSwedish University of Agricultural Sciences · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In response to the health threats posed by toxic lead to humans, scavenging wildlife and the environment, there is currently a focus on transitioning from lead-based to lead-free bullets for shooting of wild animals. We compared efficiency metrics and terminal ballistic performance for lead-based and lead-free (non-lead) bullets for aerial shooting of wild pigs (Sus scrofa) in eastern Australia. Ballistic testing revealed that lead-based and lead-free bullets achieved similar performance in precision and muzzle kinetic energy (E0) levels (3337.2 J and 3345.7 J, respectively). An aerial shooting trial was conducted with wild pigs shot with one type of lead-based and one type of lead-free bullets under identical conditions. Observations were made from 859 shooting events (n = 430 and 429 respectively), with a sub-set of pigs examined via gross post-mortem (n = 100 and 108 respectively), and a further sub-set examined via radiography (n = 94 and 101 respectively). The mean number of bullets fired per pig killed did not differ greatly between lead-based and lead-free bullets respectively (4.09 vs 3.91), nor did the mean number of bullet wound tracts in each animal via post-mortem inspection (3.29 vs 2.98). However, radiography revealed a higher average number of fragments per animal (median >300 vs median = 55) and a broader distribution of fragments with lead-based bullets. Our results suggest that lead-based and lead-free bullets are similarly effective for aerial shooting of wild pigs, but that the bullet types behave differently, with lead-based bullets displaying a higher degree of fragmentation. These results suggest that aerial shooting may be a particularly important contributor to scavenging wildlife being exposed to lead and that investigation of lead-free bullets for this use should continue.

Indexed as

Animals, WildEnvironmental ExposureFirearmsSus scrofaAnimalsAutopsyHumansLeadLead

Identifiers

PMID33705434
PMCPMC7951828
OpenAlexW3134554661

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.