Skip directly to search Skip directly to A to Z list Skip directly to page options Skip directly to site content

Volume 12, Number 6—June 2006

Dispatch

Pasture Types and Echinococcus multilocularis, Tibetan Communities

Qian Wang*Comments to Author , Dominique A. Vuitton†, Yongfu Xiao*, Christine M. Budke‡, Maiza Campos-Ponce§, Peter M. Schantz¶, Francis Raoul†, Wen Yang*, Philip S. Craig#, and Patrick Giraudoux†
Author affiliations: *Sichuan Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Chengdu, Sichuan, People's Republic of China; †University of Franche-Comte, Besançon, France; ‡Texas A & M University, College Station, Texas, USA; §Free University, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; ¶Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA; #University of Salford, Salford, United Kingdom

Main Article

Table 1

Comparisons of open and fenced pastures small mammal burrow densities, stratified by landscapes*

Landscape Pasture type No. observations Mean rank of densities Sum rank of densities Mann-Whitney U Z Asymptomatic p (2-tailed)
Valley Open 616 439.07 270,464.50 63,715.500 –2.784 0.005
Fenced 234 389.79 91,210.50
Flat land Open 175 109.38 19,141.00 634.000 –5.819 <0.001
Fenced 25 38.36 959.00
Piedmont Open 155 96.91 15,020.50 2,930.500 –1.643 0.100
Fenced 45 112.88 5,079.50
Valley entrance Open 180 103.83 18,690.00 1,200.000 –2.833 0.005
Fenced 20 70.50 1,410.00

*Density, no. burrows per 200 m2 of pasture.

Main Article

TOP