Skip directly to site content Skip directly to page options Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link
Volume 12, Number 6—June 2006

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

Page created: January 04, 2012
Page updated: January 04, 2012
Page reviewed: January 04, 2012
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.