4.6 Article

Disease transmission in territorial populations: the small-world network of Serengeti lions

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY INTERFACE
卷 8, 期 59, 页码 776-786

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2010.0511

关键词

African lion; contact rates; epidemiological modelling; network model; territoriality; wildlife disease

资金

  1. NSF [DEB-0343960, DEB-0749097, DEB-0308486, DEB-0710070, EF-0225453, OISE-0804186]
  2. Lincoln Park Zoo
  3. Sigma Xi
  4. U of MN's Graduate School
  5. EEB Department
  6. NIH [NIH 1-K01-AI-0914400-01]
  7. James F. McDonnell Foundation
  8. Direct For Biological Sciences
  9. Division Of Environmental Biology [0749097] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  10. Office Of The Director
  11. Office Of Internatl Science &Engineering [0804186] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Territoriality in animal populations creates spatial structure that is thought to naturally buffer disease invasion. Often, however, territorial populations also include highly mobile, non-residential individuals that potentially serve as disease superspreaders. Using long-term data from the Serengeti Lion Project, we characterize the contact network structure of a territorial wildlife population and address the epidemiological impact of nomadic individuals. As expected, pride contacts are dominated by interactions with neighbouring prides and interspersed by encounters with nomads as they wander throughout the ecosystem. Yet the pride-pride network also includes occasional long-range contacts between prides, making it surprisingly small world and vulnerable to epidemics, even without nomads. While nomads increase both the local and global connectivity of the network, their epidemiological impact is marginal, particularly for diseases with short infectious periods like canine distemper virus. Thus, territoriality in Serengeti lions may be less protective and non-residents less important for disease transmission than previously considered.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据