Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 351

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 129 of the 129 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Bacterial pathogens in wild birds: a review of the frequency and effects of infection

Benskin, Clare McW. H., Wilson, Kenneth, Jones, Keith, Hartley, Ian R.·2009·Biological Reviews

Abstract

The importance of wild birds as potential vectors of disease has received recent renewed empirical interest, especially regarding human health. Understanding the spread of bacterial pathogens in wild birds may serve as a useful model for examining the spread of other disease organisms, both amongst birds, and from birds to other taxa. Information regarding the normal gastrointestinal bacterial flora is limited for the majority of wild bird species, with the few well‐studied examples concentrating on bacteria that are zoonotic and/or relate to avian species of commercial interest. However, most studies are limited by small sample sizes, the frequent absence of longitudinal data, and the constraints of using selective techniques to isolate specific pathogens. The pathogenic genera found in the gut are often those suspected to exist in the birds’ habitat, and although correlations are made between bacterial pathogens in the avian gut and those found in their foraging grounds, little is known about the effect of the pathogen on the host, unless the causative organism is lethal. In this review, we provide an overview of the main bacterial pathogens isolated from birds (with particular emphasis on enteropathogenic bacteria) which have the potential to cause disease in both birds and humans, whilst drawing attention to the limitations of traditional detection methods and possible study biases. We consider factors likely to affect the susceptibility of birds to bacterial pathogens, including environmental exposure and heterogeneities within the host population, and present probable avenues of disease transmission amongst birds and from birds to other animal taxa. Our primary aim is to identify gaps in current knowledge and to propose areas for future study.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1469-185x.2008.00076.x

Cites

129 of 129 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 129 references

Metadata

Authors
Benskin, C. M. H., Wilson, K., Jones, K., & Hartley, I. R.
Venue
Biological Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-07-23
Volume
84
Issue
3
Pages
349-373
ISSN
  • 0006-3231 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-7931
  • 1469-185X
OpenAlex
W2149339038
Cited by
351
References
129
FWCI
1.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Bacterial pathogens in wild birds: a review of the frequency and effects of infection. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1469-185x.2008.00076.x
The paper
Benskin, C. M. H., Wilson, K., Jones, K., & Hartley, I. R. (2009). Bacterial pathogens in wild birds: a review of the frequency and effects of infection. Biological Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185x.2008.00076.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.