Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34352518›Full record

ArticlePreventive veterinary medicine2021

Spatial and temporal variation in proximity networks of commercial dairy cattle in Great Britain.

Helen R Fielding, Matthew J Silk, Trevelyan J McKinley, Richard J Delahay, Jared K Wilson-Aggarwal, Laetitia Gauvin, Laura Ozella, Ciro Cattuto, Robbie A McDonald

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Preventive veterinary medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Social networks and the conservation of fish.Communications biology · 2022
    Review
  7. 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

9 authors.

Helen R FieldingEnvironment and Sustainability Institute, University of Exeter, Penryn Campus, Penryn, TR10 9FE, UK.
Matthew J SilkEnvironment and Sustainability Institute, University of Exeter, Penryn Campus, Penryn, TR10 9FE, UK.
Trevelyan J McKinleyCollege of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX2 5DW, UK.
Richard J DelahayNational Wildlife Management Centre, Animal and Plant Health Agency, Sand Hutton, York, YO41 1LZ, UK.
Jared K Wilson-AggarwalEnvironment and Sustainability Institute, University of Exeter, Penryn Campus, Penryn, TR10 9FE, UK.
Laetitia GauvinISI Foundation, Via Chisola 5, 10126, Torino, Italy.
Laura OzellaISI Foundation, Via Chisola 5, 10126, Torino, Italy.
Ciro CattutoISI Foundation, Via Chisola 5, 10126, Torino, Italy; Computer Science Department, University of Turin, Corso Svizzera 185, 10149, Torino, Italy.
Robbie A McDonaldEnvironment and Sustainability Institute, University of Exeter, Penryn Campus, Penryn, TR10 9FE, UK. Electronic address: r.mcdonald@exeter.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The nature of contacts between hosts can be important in facilitating or impeding the spread of pathogens within a population. Networks constructed from contacts between hosts allow examination of how individual variation might influence the spread of infections. Studying the contact networks of livestock species managed under different conditions can additionally provide insight into their influence on these contact structures. We collected high-resolution proximity and GPS location data from nine groups of domestic cattle (mean group size = 85) in seven dairy herds employing a range of grazing and housing regimes. Networks were constructed from cattle contacts (defined by proximity) aggregated by different temporal windows (2 h, 24 h, and approximately 1 week) and by location within the farm. Networks of contacts aggregated over the whole study were highly saturated but dividing contacts by space and time revealed substantial variation in cattle interactions. Cows showed statistically significant variation in the frequency of their contacts and in the number of cows with which they were in contact. When cows were in buildings, compared to being on pasture, contact durations were longer and cows contacted more other cows. A small number of cows showed evidence of consistent relationships but the majority of cattle did not. In one group where management allowed free access to all farm areas, cows showed asynchronous space use and, while at pasture, contacted fewer other cows and showed substantially greater between-individual variation in contacts than other groups. We highlight the degree to which variations in management (e.g. grazing access, milking routine) substantially alter cattle contact patterns, with potentially major implications for infection transmission and social interactions. In particular, where individual cows have free choice of their environment, the resulting contact networks may have a less-risky structure that could reduce the likelihood of direct transmission of infections.

Indexed as

Cattle DiseasesDairyingAnimalsCattleFarmsFemaleMilkSpatio-Temporal AnalysisUnited KingdomCattleContactDisease transmissionLivestockSocial network

Identifiers

PMID34352518
PMCPMC8385416

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.