Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 249

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Mitigating amphibian disease: strategies to maintain wild populations and control chytridiomycosis

Open access
Woodhams, Douglas C, Bosch, Jaime, Briggs, Cheryl J, Cashins, Scott, Davis, Leyla R, Lauer, Antje, Muths, Erin, Puschendorf, Robert, Schmidt, Benedikt R, Sheafor, Brandon, Voyles, Jamie·2011·Frontiers in Zoology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Rescuing amphibian diversity is an achievable conservation challenge. Disease mitigation is one essential component of population management. Here we assess existing disease mitigation strategies, some in early experimental stages, which focus on the globally emerging chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis. We discuss the precedent for each strategy in systems ranging from agriculture to human medicine, and the outlook for each strategy in terms of research needs and long-term potential. RESULTS: We find that the effects of exposure to Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis occur on a spectrum from transient commensal to lethal pathogen. Management priorities are divided between (1) halting pathogen spread and developing survival assurance colonies, and (2) prophylactic or remedial disease treatment. Epidemiological models of chytridiomycosis suggest that mitigation strategies can control disease without eliminating the pathogen. Ecological ethics guide wildlife disease research, but several ethical questions remain for managing disease in the field. CONCLUSIONS: Because sustainable conservation of amphibians in nature is dependent on long-term population persistence and co-evolution with potentially lethal pathogens, we suggest that disease mitigation not focus exclusively on the elimination or containment of the pathogen, or on the captive breeding of amphibian hosts. Rather, successful disease mitigation must be context specific with epidemiologically informed strategies to manage already infected populations by decreasing pathogenicity and host susceptibility. We propose population level treatments based on three steps: first, identify mechanisms of disease suppression; second, parameterize epizootiological models of disease and population dynamics for testing under semi-natural conditions; and third, begin a process of adaptive management in field trials with natural populations.

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 · 10.1186/1742-9994-8-8

Cites

5 of 5 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 5 references

Cited by

See all 249

Metadata

Authors
Woodhams, D. C., Bosch, J., Briggs, C. J., Cashins, S., Davis, L. R., Lauer, A., Muths, E., Puschendorf, R., Schmidt, B. R., Sheafor, B., & Voyles, J.
Venue
Frontiers in Zoology
Published
2011
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
8
ISSN
1742-9994 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2159052146
Cited by
249
References
5
FWCI
17.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Mitigating amphibian disease: strategies to maintain wild populations and control chytridiomycosis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1742-9994-8-8
The paper
Woodhams, D. C., Bosch, J., Briggs, C. J., Cashins, S., Davis, L. R., Lauer, A., Muths, E., Puschendorf, R., Schmidt, B. R., Sheafor, B., & Voyles, J. (2011). Mitigating amphibian disease: strategies to maintain wild populations and control chytridiomycosis. Frontiers in Zoology. https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-9994-8-8

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.