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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |