The effects of reducing population density on contact rates between brushtail possums: implications for transmission of bovine tuberculosis

By D. Ramsey, N. Spencer, P. Caley, M. Efford, K. Hansen, M. K. Lam, D. Cooper. 2002

110 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Agronomy and Crop Science, Ecology, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e6dfd3b7a1ddf1d5f7152e2ba1dd08fe88877ba0

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Agronomy and Crop Science

1. S. Gehrt
2. S. Prange
3. Wayne M. Getz
4. Paul C. Cross

In Ecology

1. E. Schauber
2. S. Prange
3. S. Gehrt
4. C. Nielsen
5. D. J. Storm
6. Wayne M. Getz
7. Graham C. Smith
8. Dennis M. Heisey

In Statistics and Probability

1. Wayne M. Getz
2. S. Gehrt
3. S. Prange
4. E. Schauber
5. C. Nielsen
6. J. Stefano
7. Shinichi Nakagawa

Citations in the corpus

• Management of disease in wild mammals (2009, background): “However, empirical evidence often suggests a non-linear response with density (Caley et al. 1998; Ramsey et al. 2002).”
• Molecular techniques, wildlife management and the importance of genetic population structure and dispersal: a case study with feral pigs (2004, background): “Clearly, other factors, such as contact rates and interspecific transmission, are equally important in formulating exotic disease contingency plans (Ramsey et al. 2002; Caley & Hone 2004).”
• Disease, predation and demography: Assessing the impacts of bovine tuberculosis on African buffalo by monitoring at individual and population levels (2009, background): “In the absence of post-mortem culture results on these animals, it is difficult to ascertain whether these tests were false positives or false negatives.”
• Effects of Joint Space Use and Group Membership on Contact Rates Among White-Tailed Deer (2007, methodology): “Past researchers have 61 quantified contact rates by observing contacts visually (Totton et al. 2002) or using 62 telemetry to infer how often animals come in close proximity (White and Harris 1994, 63 Caley et al. 1998, Ramsey et al. 2002, White et al. 2003, Ji et al. 2005).”
• New Radiocollars for the Detection of Proximity among Individuals (2006, background): “…negates the possibility of determining the proximity of individuals with a high degree of resolution (contact usually defined as occurring if active locations are within 25–100 m; White and Harris 1994, Gehrt and Fritzell 1998, White et al. 2000, Ramsey et al. 2002, Atwood and Weeks 2003).”