Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34547048›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Species, causes, and outcomes of wildlife rehabilitation in New York State.

Melissa Hanson, Nicholas Hollingshead, Krysten Schuler, William F Siemer, Patrick Martin, Elizabeth M Bunting

Abstract read
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 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing 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

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Eurasian Red Squirrels (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Factors determining the survival or mortality ofBiodiversity data journal · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Interrupted Lives: Welfare Considerations in Wildlife Rehabilitation.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    Review
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

6 authors.

Melissa HansonCornell Wildlife Health Lab, New York State Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-0825-7770
Nicholas HollingsheadCornell Wildlife Health Lab, New York State Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, United States of America.
Krysten SchulerCornell Wildlife Health Lab, New York State Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, United States of America.
William F SiemerCenter for Conservation Social Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, United States of America.
Patrick MartinNew York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, New York, United States of America.
Elizabeth M BuntingCornell Wildlife Health Lab, New York State Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Wildlife rehabilitation is a publicly popular practice, though not without controversy. State wildlife agencies frequently debate the ecological impact of rehabilitation. By analyzing case records, we can clarify and quantify the causes for rehabilitation, species involved, and treatment outcomes. This data would aid regulatory agencies and rehabilitators in making informed decisions, as well as gaining insight into causes of species mortality. In New York State, the Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) has licensed rehabilitators since 1980 and annual reporting is required. In this study, we analyzed 58,185 individual wildlife cases that were attended by New York rehabilitators between 2012 and 2014. These encompassed 30,182 (51.9%) birds, 25,447 (43.7%) mammals, 2,421 (4.2%) reptiles, and 75 (0.1%) amphibians. We identified patterns among taxonomic representation, reasons for presentation to a rehabilitation center, and animal disposition. Major causes of presentation were trauma (n = 22,156; 38.1%) and orphaning (n = 21,679; 37.3%), with habitat loss (n = 3,937; 6.8%), infectious disease (n = 1,824; 3.1%), and poisoning or toxin exposure (n = 806; 1.4%) playing lesser roles. The overall release rate for animals receiving care was 50.2% while 45.3% died or were euthanized during the rehabilitation process. A relatively small number (0.3%) were permanently non-releasable and placed in captivity; 4.1% had unknown outcomes. A comparable evaluation in 1989 revealed that wildlife submissions have increased (annual mean 12,583 vs 19,395), and are accompanied by a significant improvement in release (50.2% in the study period vs 44.4% in 1989) (χ2(1) = 90.43, p < 0.0001). In this manuscript, we aim to describe the rehabilitator community in New York State, and present the causes and outcomes for rehabilitation over a three-year period.

Indexed as

AmphibiansAnimalsAnimals, WildBirdsConservation of Natural ResourcesEcosystemFemaleMaleMammalsNew YorkReptilesRetrospective StudiesWounds and Injuries

Identifiers

PMID34547048
PMCPMC8454955

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.