Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33954034›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2021

Retrospective study on admission trends of Californian hummingbirds found in urban habitats (1991-2016).

Pranav S Pandit, Ruta R Bandivadekar, Christine K Johnson, Nicole Mikoni, Michelle Mah, Guthrum Purdin, Elaine Ibarra, Duane Tom, Allison Daugherty, Max W Lipman and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 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. 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

12 authors.

Pranav S Pandit *EpiCenter for Disease Dynamics, One Health Institute, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7649-0649
Ruta R Bandivadekar *Department of Medicine and Epidemiology, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6380-8881
Christine K JohnsonEpiCenter for Disease Dynamics, One Health Institute, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, USA.
Nicole MikoniDepartment of Medicine and Epidemiology, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, USA.
Michelle MahDepartment of Wildlife Fish and Conservation Biology, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, USA.
Guthrum PurdinLindsay Wildlife Experience, Walnut Creek, CA, USA.
Elaine IbarraSanta Barbara Wildlife Care Network, Santa Barbara, CA, USA.
Duane TomLA Wild, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Allison DaughertyLindsay Wildlife Experience, Walnut Creek, CA, USA.
Max W LipmanLindsay Wildlife Experience, Walnut Creek, CA, USA.
Krystal WooLindsay Wildlife Experience, Walnut Creek, CA, USA.
Lisa A TellDepartment of Medicine and Epidemiology, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1823-7420

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHummingbirds are frequently presented to California wildlife rehabilitation centers for medical care, accounting for approximately 5% of overall admissions. Age, sex, and reason for admission could impact hummingbird survivability, therefore identification of these factors could help maximize rehabilitation efforts.

methodsMixed-effects logistic regression models were used to identify specific threats to the survival of 6908 hummingbirds (1645 nestlings and 5263 non-nestlings) consisting of five species (

resultsIn total, 36% of birds survived and were transferred to flight cage facilities for further rehabilitation and/or release. Nestlings were more likely to be transferred and/or released compared to adult hummingbirds. After accounting for age, birds rescued in spring and summer were twice as likely to be released compared to birds rescued in the fall. A high number of nestlings were presented to the rehabilitation centers during spring, which coincides with the nesting season for hummingbirds in California, with the lowest number of nestlings presented in fall. Reasons for presentation to rehabilitation centers included several anthropogenic factors such as window collisions (9.6%) and interactions with domesticated animals (12.9%). Survival odds were lower if a hummingbird was rescued in a "torpor-like state" and were higher if rescued for "nest-related" reasons. Evaluation of treatment regimens administered at wildlife rehabilitation centers identified supportive care, including providing commercial nutrient-rich nectar plus solution, to significantly increase hummingbird survivability. DISCUSSION: Our results provide evidence of threats to hummingbirds in urban habitats, based on reasons for rescue and presentation to rehabilitation centers. Reasons for hummingbird admissions to three California wildlife rehabilitation centers were anthropogenic in nature (i.e., being associated with domestic animals, window collisions, and found inside a man-made structure) and constituted 25% of total admissions. There was a clear indication that supportive care, such as feeding a commercial nectar solution, and medical treatment significantly increased the odds of survival for rescued hummingbirds.

Indexed as

Anthropogenic threatsArchilochus alexandriCaliforniaCalypte annaCalypte costaSelasphorus rufusSelasphorus sasinWildlife rehabilitationWildlife rescue

Identifiers

PMID33954034
PMCPMC8051342

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.