Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T09:46:24.282Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

An assessment of animal welfare impacts in wild Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus) management

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

SE Baker*
Affiliation:
University of Oxford, Department of Zoology, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK
M Ayers
Affiliation:
Precision Pest Management Solutions Ltd, Iveson Drive, Leeds LS16 6BG, UK
NJ Beausoleil
Affiliation:
Massey University, Animal Welfare Science and Bioethics Centre, School of Veterinary Science, Palmerston North, 4410, New Zealand
SR Belmain
Affiliation:
Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich, Central Avenue, Chatham Maritime, Kent ME4 4TB, UK
M Berdoy
Affiliation:
University of Oxford, Biomedical Services, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK
AP Buckle
Affiliation:
School of Biological Sciences, The University of Reading, Reading RG6 6AS, UK
C Cagienard
Affiliation:
Pest Solutions, 10 Seaward Place, Glasgow G41 1HH, UK
D Cowan
Affiliation:
Newcastle University, School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle, UK
J Fearn-Daglish
Affiliation:
JFD Field Biologist, Derby, Derbyshire, UK
P Goddard
Affiliation:
Banchory, Aberdeenshire, UK
HDR Golledge
Affiliation:
Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, The Old School, Brewhouse Hill, Wheathampstead AL4 8AN, UK
E Mullineaux
Affiliation:
Capital Veterinary Services Ltd, Edinburgh, UK
T Sharp
Affiliation:
Vertebrate Pest Research Unit, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Tocal Agricultural Centre, Paterson, NSW, Australia
A Simmons
Affiliation:
Ilminster, Somerset, UK
E Schmolz
Affiliation:
German Environment Agency, Section IV 1.4, Berlin, Germany
*
* Contact for correspondence: sandra.baker@zoo.ox.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus) are considered one of the most significant vertebrate pests globally, because of their impacts on human and animal health. There are legal and moral obligations to minimise the impacts of wildlife management on animal welfare, yet there are few data on the relative welfare impacts of rat trapping and baiting methods used in the UK with which to inform management decisions. Two stakeholder workshops were facilitated to assess the relative welfare impacts of six lethal rat management methods using a welfare assessment model. Fifteen stakeholders including experts in wildlife management, rodent management, rodent biology, animal welfare science, and veterinary science and medicine, participated. The greatest welfare impacts were associated with three baiting methods, anticoagulants, cholecalciferol and non-toxic cellulose baits (severe to extreme impact for days), and with capture on a glue trap (extreme for hours) with concussive killing (mild to moderate for seconds to minutes); these methods should be considered last resorts from a welfare perspective. Lower impacts were associated with cage trapping (moderate to severe for hours) with concussive killing (moderate for minutes). The impact of snap trapping was highly variable (no impact to extreme for seconds to minutes). Snap traps should be regulated and tested to identify those that cause rapid unconsciousness; such traps might represent the most welfare-friendly option assessed for killing rats. Our results can be used to integrate consideration of rat welfare alongside other factors, including cost, efficacy, safety, non-target animal welfare and public acceptability when selecting management methods. We also highlight ways of reducing welfare impacts and areas where more data are needed.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 2022 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association) 2020 AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals. AVMA: Shaumberg, IL, USAGoogle Scholar
Baker, SE, Ellwood, SA, Tagarielli, VL and Macdonald, DW 2012 Mechanical performance of rat, mouse and mole spring traps, and possible implications for welfare performance. PLoS ONE 7: e39334. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0039334CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baker, SE, Macdonald, DW and Ellwood, SA 2017 Double standards in spring trap welfare: ending inequality for rats (Rodentia: Muridae), mice (Rodentia: Muridae) and moles (Insectivora: Talpidae) in the United Kingdom. In: Davies, MP, Pfeiffer, C and Robinson, WH (eds) Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Urban Pests pp 139145. Birmingham, UKGoogle Scholar
Baker, SE, Maw, SA, Johnson, PJ and Macdonald, DM 2020 Not in my backyard: public perceptions of wildlife and ‘pest con-trol’ in and around UK homes, and local authority ‘pest control’. Animals 10: 222. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10020222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, SE, Sharp, TM and Macdonald, DW 2016 Assessing ani-mal welfare impacts in the management of European rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus), European moles (Talpa europaea) and car-rion crows (Corvus corone). PLoS One 1: e0146298. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, SE, Shaw, RF, Atkinson, RPD, West, P and Macdonald, DW 2015 Potential welfare impacts of kill-trapping European moles (Talpa europaea) using scissor traps and Duffus traps: a post-mortem examination study. Animal Welfare 24: 114. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.24.1.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Battersby, SA 2015 Rodents as carriers of disease. In: Buckle, AP and Smith, RH (eds) Rodent Pests and their Control pp 81100. CABI International: Wallingford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781845938178.0081CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beausoleil, NJ, Fisher, P, Littin, KE, Warburton, B, Mellor, DJ, Dalefield, RR and Cowan, P 2016 A systematic approach to evaluating and ranking the relative animal welfare impacts of wildlife control methods: poisons used for lethal control of brush-tail possums (Trichosurus vulpecula) in New Zealand. Wildlife Research 43: 553565. https://doi.org/10.1071/WR16041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beausoleil, NJ and Mellor, DJ 2015a Introducing breathlessness as a significant animal welfare issue. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 63: 4451. https://doi.org/10.1080/00480169.2014.940410CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beausoleil, NJ and Mellor, DJ 2015b Advantages and limitations of the Five Domains model for assessing welfare impacts associat-ed with vertebrate pest control. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 63: 3743. https://doi.org/10.1080/00480169.2014.956832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berdoy, M and Drickamer, LC 2007 Comparative social organ-ization and life history of Rattus and Mus. In: Wolff, JO and Sherman, PW (eds) Rodent Societies: an Ecological and Evolutionary Perspective pp 380392. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, USAGoogle Scholar
Boulet, M, Borg, K, Faulkner, N and Smith, L 2021 Evenly split: Exploring the highly polarized public response to the use of lethal methods to manage overabundant native wildlife in Australia. Journal for Nature Conservation (Jena) 61: 125995. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2021.125995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BPCA (British Pest Control Association) 2018 The Use of Air Guns in Pest Control; Code of Best Practice, First Edition. British Pest Control Association: UKGoogle Scholar
Bright, PW and Morris, PA 1994 Animal translocation for con-servation – performance of dormice in relation to release meth-ods, origin and season. Journal of Applied Ecology 31: 699708. https://doi.org/10.2307/2404160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broom, DM 1999 The welfare of vertebrate pests in relation to their management. In: Cowan, DP and Feare, CJ (eds) Advances in Vertebrate Pest Management pp 309329. Filander Verlag: Furth, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Buckle, AP and Eason, CT 2015 Control methods: Chemical. In: Buckle, AP and Smith, RH (eds) Rodent Pests and their Control pp 123154. CAB International: Wallingford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781845938178.0123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckle, AP and Smith, RH 2015 Rodent Pests and their Control. CAB International: Wallingford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781845938178.0000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CABI (Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International) 2019 Invasive Species Compendium. www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/46829Google Scholar
Colombe, S, Jancloes, M, Riviere, A and Bertherat, E 2019 A new approach to rodent control to better protect human health: first international meeting of experts under the auspices of WHO and the Pan American Health Organization. Weekly Epidemiological Record 17: 197203Google Scholar
Cox, P and Smith, RH 1992 Rodenticide ecotoxicology: pre-lethal effects of anti-coagulants on rat behaviour. Proceedings of the Fifteenth Vertebrate Pest Conference p 86. 1992, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, USAGoogle Scholar
Croft, S, Aegerter, JN, Beatham, S, Coats, J and Massei, G 2021 A spatially explicit population model to compare manage-ment using culling and fertility control to reduce numbers of grey squirrels. Ecological Modelling 440: 109386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2020.109386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CRRU UK (Campaign for Responsible Rodenticide Use UK) 2021 CRRU UK Code of Best Practice; Best Practice Guidance for Rodent Control and the Safe Use of Rodenticides. Revision August 2021. Campaign for Responsible Rodenticide Use UK. pp 36. www.thinkwildlife.org/code-of-best-practice/Google Scholar
Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) 2009 Spring trap and collarum test criteria. Defra: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Dizney, L, Jones, PD and Ruedas, LA 2008 Efficacy of three types of live traps used for surveying small mammals in the Pacific Northwest. Northwestern Naturalist 89: 171180. https://doi.org/10.1898/NWN08-18.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubois, S, Fenwick, N, Ryan, EA, Baker, L, Baker, SE, Beausoleil, NJ, Carter, S, Cartwright, B, Costa, F, Draper, C, Griffin, J, Grogan, A, Howald, G, Jones, B, Littin, KE, Lombard, AT, Mellor, DJ, Ramp, D, Schuppli, CA and Fraser, D 2017 Consensus principles for ethical wildlife control. Conservation Biology 31: 753760. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12896CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
EC (European Commission) 2019 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/637 of 23 April 2019 approving cholecalcif-erol as an active substance for use in biocidal products of prod-uct-type 14. Official Journal of the European Union L 109/13. pp 6Google Scholar
Ennaceur, A, Michalikova, S and Chazot, PL 2009 Do rats really express neophobia towards novel objects? Experimental evidence from exposure to novelty and to an object recognition task in an open space and an enclosed space. Behavioural Brain Research 197: 417434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2008.10.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EU (European Union) 2020 Product assessment report of a bioci-dal product for national authorisation applications; Selontra® Product Type PT 14 Cholecalciferol. Case number in R4BP: BC-LS050091-32. Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products. file:///C:/Users/uzdb0086/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INe tCache/Content.Outlook/9IETAM6A/105196_Selontra_fPAR__O ct_2020_non_confidential.pdfGoogle Scholar
FAWC (Farm Animal Welfare Council) 2009 Farm Animal Welfare in Great Britain: Past, Present and Future. FAWC: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Fenwick, N 2014 Evaluation of the humaneness of rodent capture using glue traps. The Canadian Association for Humane Trapping: CanadaGoogle Scholar
FERA 2011 Evaluating the potential of analgesics to improve the humaneness of anticoagulant rodenticides; SID 5 Research Project Final Report (Rev. 07/10). Defra. http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=Mor e&Location=None&Completed=2&ProjectID=17716Google Scholar
Fischer, B and Lamey, A 2018 Field deaths in plant agriculture. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 31: 409428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-018-9733-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, P, Beausoleil, NJ, Warburton, B, Mellor, DJ, Campion, M and Booth, L 2010 How humane are our pest control tools? (09-11326). Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Biosecurity New Zealand Technical Paper No: 2011/01. Landcare Research: Lincoln, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
Frantz, SC and Padula, CM 1983 A laboratory test method for evaluating the efficacy of glueboards for trapping house mice. In: Kaukeinen DE (ed) Vertebrate Pest Control and Management Materials, Fourth Symposium pp 209225. American Society for Testing and Materials: Philadelphia, USA. https://doi.org/10.1520/STP30182SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 2008 Understanding Animal Welfare; The Science in its Cultural Context. Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Galef, BG and Buckley, LL 1996 Use of foraging trails by Norway rats. Animal Behaviour 51: 765771. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1996.0081CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GEA (German Environment Agency) 2021 Liste der geprüften Mittel und Verfahren zur Bekämpfung von Gesundheitsschädlingen, Krätzmilben und Kopfläusen gemäß § 18 Infektionsschutzgesetz as of May 1, 2021. German Environment Agency, Germany. https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/dokument/liste-ss-18-infektionsschutzgesetz. [Title translation: List of tested agents and methods for the control of health pests, scabies mites and head lice according to § 18 Infection Protection Act]Google Scholar
Gregory, N 2004 Physiology and Behaviour of Animal Suffering. Blackwell: Oxford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470752494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Himsworth, CG, Feng, AYT, Parsons, K, Kerr, T and Patrick, DM 2013 Using experiential knowledge to understand urban rat ecology: A survey of Canadian pest control professionals. Urban Ecosystems 16: 341350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-012-0261-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsieh, H, Simons, M, Hartman, J and Dale, H 2017 Effects of social housing on cannibalism in mice and rats. International Journal of Toxicology 36: 7474Google Scholar
Jacob, J and Buckle, A 2018 Use of anticoagulant rodenticides in different applications around the world. In: van den Brink, N, Elliott, J, Shore, R and Rattner, B (eds) Anticoagulant Rodenticides and Wildlife. Emerging Topics in Ecotoxicology (Principles, Approaches and Perspectives) pp 1143. Springer: Cham, Denmark. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64377-9_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jansen, P 2011 The Goodnature® A24 automatic rat & stoat Kill Trap; evaluation of humaneness. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjspcare-2011-000020.72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jolly, SE, Eason, CT and Frampton, C 1993 Serum-calcium lev-els in response to cholecalciferol and calcium carbonate in the Australian brushtail possum. Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology 47: 159164. https://doi.org/10.1006/pest.1993.1074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenward, RE and Hodder, KH 1998 Red squirrels (Sciurus vul-garis) released in conifer woodland: the effects of source habitat, predation and interactions with grey squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis). Journal of Zoology 244: 2332. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1998.tb00003.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraaijeveld-Smit, F 2015 Ethics in rodent control. In: Buckle, AP and Smith, RH (eds) Rodent Pests and their Control pp 315329. CAB International: Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781845938178.0315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambert, M, Vial, F, Pietravalle, S and Cowan, D 2017 Results of a 15-year systematic survey of commensal rodents in English dwellings. Scientific Reports 7: 15882. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-15723-9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Littin, KE and Mellor, DJ 2005 Strategic animal welfare issues: ethical and animal welfare issues arising from the killing of wildlife for disease control and environmental reasons. Revue Scientifique et Technique Office International des Epizooties 24: 767782. https://doi.org/10.20506/rst.24.2.1611CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Littin, KE, Mellor, DJ, Warburton, B and Eason, CT 2004 Animal welfare and ethical issues relevant to the humane control of vertebrate pests. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 52: 110. https://doi.org/10.1080/00480169.2004.36384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Littin, KE, O’Connor, C and Eason, C 2000 Comparative effects of brodifacoum on rats and possums. In: Zydenbos, SM (ed) Proceedings the 53rd New Zealand Plant Protection Conference pp 310315. January 2000, New Zealand. https://doi.org/10.30843/nzpp.2000.53.3701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lund, M 2015 Commensal rodents. In: Buckle, AP and Smith, RH (eds) Rodent Pests and Their Control pp 1932. CABI International: Wallingford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781845938178.0019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macdonald, DW and Barrett, P 1993 Mammals of Britain and Europe. Harper Collins: London, UKGoogle Scholar
MAF 2008 Proposal to Prohibit the Sale and Use of Rodent Glueboard Traps. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Biosecurity: New ZealandGoogle Scholar
Mason, G and Littin, K 2003 The humaneness of rodent pest control. Animal Welfare 12: 137Google Scholar
Meerburg, BG, Singleton, GR and Kijlstra, A 2009 Rodent-borne diseases and their risks for public health. Critical Reviews in Microbiology 35: 221270. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408410902989837CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mellor, DJ and Beausoleil, NJ 2015 Extending the ‘Five Domains’ model for animal welfare assessment to incorporate positive welfare states. Animal Welfare 24: 241253. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.24.3.241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellor, DJ and Reid, CSW 1994 Concepts of animal well-being and predicting the impact of procedures on experimental animals. In: Baker, RM, Jenkin, G and Mellor, DJ (eds) Improving the Well-being of Animals in the Research Environment pp 318. Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Training (ANZCCART): Glen Osmond, South Australia, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
Morriss, GA and Warburton, B 2014 Modifying the Victor (R) Easy Set (R) Rat Trap to improve the animal welfare of stoats and ship rats trapped in New Zealand. PLoS One 9: e86760. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0086760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakayama, SMM, Morita, A, Ikenaka, Y, Mizukawa, H and Ishizuka, M 2019 A review: poisoning by anticoagulant rodenti-cides in non-target animals globally. Journal of Veterinary Medical Science 81: 298313. https://doi.org/10.1292/jvms.17-0717CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Natural England 2010 The Animal Welfare Act 2006: What it means for wildlife. Technical Information Note TIN072. Natural England: Sheffield, UKGoogle Scholar
Parrott, D, Quy, R, Van Driel, K, Lurz, P, Rushton, S, Gurnell, J, Aebischer, N and Reynolds, J 2009 Review of red squirrel con-servation activity in northern England. A Report by Fera to Natural England (NECR019). Natural England: Sheffield, UKGoogle Scholar
Pearson, E, Ortega, YK and Ruggiero, LF 2003 Trap-induced mass declines in small mammals: mass as a population index. The Journal of Wildlife Management 67: 684691. https://doi.org/10.2307/3802675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PMA (Pest Management Alliance) 2017 Code of Best Practice: Humane use of Rodent Glue Boards. https://www.pmalliance.org.uk/codes-of-best-practice/Google Scholar
Prout, DM and King, CM 2006 The effect of handling under anaesthetic on the recapture rate of wild ship rats (Rattus rattus). Animal Welfare 15: 6366Google Scholar
PSD (Pesticides Safety Directorate) 1997 Assessment of humaneness of vertebrate control agents. Evaluation of fully approved or provisionally approved products, no 171. Defra and the PSD: York, UKGoogle Scholar
Pyzyna, BR, Trulove, NF, Mansfield, CH, McMillan, RA, Ray, CN and Mayer, LP 2018 ContraPest®, a new tool for rodent control. In: Woods, DM (ed) Proceedings of the 28th Vertebrate Pest Conference. University of California, Davis, CA, USA. https://doi.org/10.5070/V42811054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
RRAG (Rodenticide Resistance Action Group) 2018 The UK Rodenticide Resistance Action Group: Response to ECHA public consultation on cholecalciferol. https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/0d7998e3-f58b-4678-b403-3d14d4c60b53/13_RRAG%20Cholecalciferol_03_04_18%20FINAL.pdfGoogle Scholar
Ryan, EA 2021 Non-target interactions and humane evaluation of a captive bolt trap on commensal rodents. MSc Thesis, University of British Columbia, CanadaGoogle Scholar
Schlötelburg, A, Geduhn, A, Schmolz, E, Friesen, A, Baker, S, Martenson, N, Le Laidier, G, Urzinger, M, Klute, O, Schröer, D, Brigham, A and Puschmann, M 2021 NoCheRo-Guidance for the Evaluation of Rodent Traps. Part A Break back/Snap traps. German Environment Agency: Dessau, Germany. https://www.umweltbun-desamt.de/publikationen/nochero-guidance-for-the-evaluation-of-rodent-trapsGoogle Scholar
Schmolz, E 2010 Efficacy of anticoagulant-free alternative bait products against house mice (Mus musculus) and brown rats (Rattus norvegicus). Integrative Zoology 1: 4452. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-4877.2010.00191.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharp, T and Saunders, G 2011 A Model for Assessing the Relative Humaneness of Pest Animal Control Methods, Second Edition. Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra, Australia. http://www.daff.gov.au/animal-plant-health/welfare/aaws/humaneness-of-pest-animal-control-methodsGoogle Scholar
Špur, N, Pokorny, B and Šorgo, A 2016 Attitudes toward and acceptability of management strategies for a population of hood-ed crows (Corvus cornix) in Slovenia. Anthrozoös 29: 669682. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2016.1228766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talling, JC and Inglis, IR 2009 Improvements to trapping standards. DG ENV. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/biodiversity/animal_welfare/hts/pdf/Final_ report.pdfGoogle Scholar
Walther, B, Ennen, H, Geduhn, A, Schlötelburg, A, Klemann, N, Endepols, S, Schenke, D and Jacob, J 2021 Effects of antico-agulant rodenticide poisoning on spatial behavior of farm dwelling Norway rats. Science of the Total Environment 787: 147520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhelev, G, Lyutskanov, M, Petrov, V, Mihaylov, G, Marutsov, P, Koev, K and Tsvetanov, TS 2013 Efficacy of a cellulose-based rodenticide for control of warfarin-resistant black rats (Rattus rat-tus). Bulgarian Journal of Veterinary Medicine 16: 134140Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Baker et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 485 KB
Supplementary material: File

Baker et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 199.3 KB
Supplementary material: File

Baker et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 159.4 KB
Supplementary material: File

Baker et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 154.6 KB
Supplementary material: File

Baker et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 43.9 KB
Supplementary material: File

Baker et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 50.8 KB
Supplementary material: File

Baker et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 45.5 KB
Supplementary material: File

Baker et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 46.3 KB
Supplementary material: File

Baker et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 134.7 KB
Supplementary material: File

Baker et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 149.2 KB
Supplementary material: File

Baker et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 154.3 KB
Supplementary material: File

Baker et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 148.7 KB
Supplementary material: File

Baker et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 148.9 KB
Supplementary material: File

Baker et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 148.4 KB
Supplementary material: File

Baker et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 149.8 KB
Supplementary material: File

Baker et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 150.5 KB
Supplementary material: File

Baker et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 149.7 KB
Supplementary material: File

Baker et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 149.7 KB