Cargando…

Towards a unified generic framework to define and observe contacts between livestock and wildlife: a systematic review

Wild animals are the source of many pathogens of livestock and humans. Concerns about the potential transmission of economically important and zoonotic diseases from wildlife have led to increased surveillance at the livestock-wildlife interface. Knowledge of the types, frequency and duration of con...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bacigalupo, Sonny A., Dixon, Linda K., Gubbins, Simon, Kucharski, Adam J., Drewe, Julian A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: PeerJ Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7594637/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33173619
http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.10221
_version_ 1783601678714404864
author Bacigalupo, Sonny A.
Dixon, Linda K.
Gubbins, Simon
Kucharski, Adam J.
Drewe, Julian A.
author_facet Bacigalupo, Sonny A.
Dixon, Linda K.
Gubbins, Simon
Kucharski, Adam J.
Drewe, Julian A.
author_sort Bacigalupo, Sonny A.
collection PubMed
description Wild animals are the source of many pathogens of livestock and humans. Concerns about the potential transmission of economically important and zoonotic diseases from wildlife have led to increased surveillance at the livestock-wildlife interface. Knowledge of the types, frequency and duration of contacts between livestock and wildlife is necessary to identify risk factors for disease transmission and to design possible mitigation strategies. Observing the behaviour of many wildlife species is challenging due to their cryptic nature and avoidance of humans, meaning there are relatively few studies in this area. Further, a consensus on the definition of what constitutes a ‘contact’ between wildlife and livestock is lacking. A systematic review was conducted to investigate which livestock-wildlife contacts have been studied and why, as well as the methods used to observe each species. Over 30,000 publications were screened, of which 122 fulfilled specific criteria for inclusion in the analysis. The majority of studies examined cattle contacts with badgers or with deer; studies involving wild pig contacts with cattle or with domestic pigs were the next most frequent. There was a range of observational methods including motion-activated cameras and global positioning system collars. As a result of the wide variation and lack of consensus in the definitions of direct and indirect contacts, we developed a unified framework to define livestock-wildlife contacts that is sufficiently flexible to be applied to most wildlife and livestock species for non-vector-borne diseases. We hope this framework will help standardise the collection and reporting of contact data; a valuable step towards being able to compare the efficacy of wildlife-livestock observation methods. In doing so, it may aid the development of better disease transmission models and improve the design and effectiveness of interventions to reduce or prevent disease transmission.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7594637
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher PeerJ Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75946372020-11-09 Towards a unified generic framework to define and observe contacts between livestock and wildlife: a systematic review Bacigalupo, Sonny A. Dixon, Linda K. Gubbins, Simon Kucharski, Adam J. Drewe, Julian A. PeerJ Animal Behavior Wild animals are the source of many pathogens of livestock and humans. Concerns about the potential transmission of economically important and zoonotic diseases from wildlife have led to increased surveillance at the livestock-wildlife interface. Knowledge of the types, frequency and duration of contacts between livestock and wildlife is necessary to identify risk factors for disease transmission and to design possible mitigation strategies. Observing the behaviour of many wildlife species is challenging due to their cryptic nature and avoidance of humans, meaning there are relatively few studies in this area. Further, a consensus on the definition of what constitutes a ‘contact’ between wildlife and livestock is lacking. A systematic review was conducted to investigate which livestock-wildlife contacts have been studied and why, as well as the methods used to observe each species. Over 30,000 publications were screened, of which 122 fulfilled specific criteria for inclusion in the analysis. The majority of studies examined cattle contacts with badgers or with deer; studies involving wild pig contacts with cattle or with domestic pigs were the next most frequent. There was a range of observational methods including motion-activated cameras and global positioning system collars. As a result of the wide variation and lack of consensus in the definitions of direct and indirect contacts, we developed a unified framework to define livestock-wildlife contacts that is sufficiently flexible to be applied to most wildlife and livestock species for non-vector-borne diseases. We hope this framework will help standardise the collection and reporting of contact data; a valuable step towards being able to compare the efficacy of wildlife-livestock observation methods. In doing so, it may aid the development of better disease transmission models and improve the design and effectiveness of interventions to reduce or prevent disease transmission. PeerJ Inc. 2020-10-26 /pmc/articles/PMC7594637/ /pubmed/33173619 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.10221 Text en ©2020 Bacigalupo et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited.
spellingShingle Animal Behavior
Bacigalupo, Sonny A.
Dixon, Linda K.
Gubbins, Simon
Kucharski, Adam J.
Drewe, Julian A.
Towards a unified generic framework to define and observe contacts between livestock and wildlife: a systematic review
title Towards a unified generic framework to define and observe contacts between livestock and wildlife: a systematic review
title_full Towards a unified generic framework to define and observe contacts between livestock and wildlife: a systematic review
title_fullStr Towards a unified generic framework to define and observe contacts between livestock and wildlife: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Towards a unified generic framework to define and observe contacts between livestock and wildlife: a systematic review
title_short Towards a unified generic framework to define and observe contacts between livestock and wildlife: a systematic review
title_sort towards a unified generic framework to define and observe contacts between livestock and wildlife: a systematic review
topic Animal Behavior
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7594637/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33173619
http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.10221
work_keys_str_mv AT bacigaluposonnya towardsaunifiedgenericframeworktodefineandobservecontactsbetweenlivestockandwildlifeasystematicreview
AT dixonlindak towardsaunifiedgenericframeworktodefineandobservecontactsbetweenlivestockandwildlifeasystematicreview
AT gubbinssimon towardsaunifiedgenericframeworktodefineandobservecontactsbetweenlivestockandwildlifeasystematicreview
AT kucharskiadamj towardsaunifiedgenericframeworktodefineandobservecontactsbetweenlivestockandwildlifeasystematicreview
AT drewejuliana towardsaunifiedgenericframeworktodefineandobservecontactsbetweenlivestockandwildlifeasystematicreview