Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Veterinary Recordarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao
Veterinary Record
Article . 2021 . Peer-reviewed
License: Wiley Online Library User Agreement
Data sources: Crossref
versions View all 1 versions
addClaim

Lack of evidence for differences in the spread of classic ( Lagovirus europaeus /GI.1) and novel ( Lagovirus europaeus /GI.2) rabbit haemorrhagic disease viruses in Europe and North Africa

Authors: Juan Antonio Aguayo‐Adán; Carlos Rouco; Miguel Delibes‐Mateos; Simone Santoro;

Lack of evidence for differences in the spread of classic ( Lagovirus europaeus /GI.1) and novel ( Lagovirus europaeus /GI.2) rabbit haemorrhagic disease viruses in Europe and North Africa

Abstract

Abstract Background Fast‐spreading diseases affecting wildlife populations threaten biodiversity. Two caliciviruses, Lagovirus europaeus /GI.1 and Lagovirus europaeus /GI.2, caused rabbit haemorrhagic disease virus (RHDV) in wild rabbits. Despite having different characteristics, these variants spread quickly, posing a threat to wild rabbit populations. Methods In this study, we conducted a thorough review of the scientific literature and reports of international organisations of first detections of both variants of RHDV in the Euro‐Mediterranean region. We concentrated on this area to avoid bias due to intentional human introductions. Results The estimated mean spread rate of GI.2 was higher than that of GI.1 (GI.2: 479 km/year, range: 47–7346; GI.1: 330 km/year, 37–6248). These differences were not statistically significant. This lack of difference may be due to the interactions between each variant's virulence characteristics. Humans may have a dominant effect on their spread. Potential limitations associated with the observational process could have hindered our ability to identify statistical differences. Conclusions The lack of difference in the spread patterns of the two variants could be due to a biological cause, human facilitation or a lack of statistical power. Adapting protocols to detect diseases in wildlife using homogeneous criteria will be indispensable in the coming years.

Related Organizations
  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    11
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
11
Top 10%
Average
Top 10%
Related to Research communities
Italian National Biodiversity Future Center
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!