Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37085564›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

Outcomes for an arboreal folivore after rehabilitation and implications for management.

Kellie A Leigh, Lacey N Hofweber, Brienna K Sloggett, Victoria L Inman, Lachlan J Pettit, Aditi Sriram, Ron Haering

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

7 authors.

Kellie A LeighScience for Wildlife Ltd, PO Box 5, Mount Victoria, NSW, 2786, Australia. kellie@scienceforwildlife.org.ORCID 0000-0002-7940-4520
Lacey N HofweberScience for Wildlife Ltd, PO Box 5, Mount Victoria, NSW, 2786, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1731-3420
Brienna K SloggettScience for Wildlife Ltd, PO Box 5, Mount Victoria, NSW, 2786, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8353-0741
Victoria L InmanScience for Wildlife Ltd, PO Box 5, Mount Victoria, NSW, 2786, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5646-7908
Lachlan J PettitScience for Wildlife Ltd, PO Box 5, Mount Victoria, NSW, 2786, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2628-1416
Aditi SriramDepartment of Planning and Environment, National Parks and Wildlife Service, Locked Bag 5022, Parramatta, NSW, 2124, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7990-0658
Ron HaeringDepartment of Planning and Environment, National Parks and Wildlife Service, Locked Bag 5022, Parramatta, NSW, 2124, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8956-5758

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Wildlife rehabilitation is a critical part of animal welfare that contributes to species conservation. Despite the resources that go into rehabilitation, how animals fare after release from care is unknown. This is particularly true for cryptic arboreal species where specialist diets in care and low detectability in the wild present challenges for both care and post-release monitoring. We evaluated post-release outcomes for koalas and assessed if koalas were fed appropriately while in care. We monitored 36 koalas that had experienced one of three categories of medical intervention (none, minor, major) during rehabilitation. We examined the drivers of (i) koala survival and (ii) movements post-release, and (iii) evaluated variation between the species of browse fed in care versus browse selected by koalas in-situ. Overall, the post release survival rate of koalas was 58.5%, with only koalas that received medical intervention experiencing mortality. A critical threshold for mortality occurred at two weeks post-release and mortality was related to the measurable indicators of low body condition and poor climbing ability at time of release. In the month following their release, animals translocated furthest from their capture point moved the furthest. There was poor overlap between the tree species that koalas were fed in care and those they utilized post-release. We provide recommendations to address critical gaps in rehabilitation practices, as well as priorities for monitoring animals post-release to improve outcomes for arboreal folivores.

Indexed as

PhascolarctidaeTreesAnimalsAnimals, WildEnvironmental Restoration and Remediation

Identifiers

PMID37085564
PMCPMC10121558

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.