Analyzing Disease Risks Associated with Translocations

Abstract

Translocations of species are expected to be used increasingly to counter the undesirable effects of anthropogenic changes to ecosystems, including loss of species. Methods to assess the risk of disease associated with translocations have been compiled in a comprehensive manual of disease-risk analysis for movement of domestic animals. We used this manual to devise a qualitative method for assessing the probability of the occurrence of disease in wild animals associated with translocations. We adapted the method such that we considered a parasite (any agent of infectious or noninfectious disease) a hazard if it or the host had crossed an ecological or geographical barrier and was novel to the host. We included in our analyses hazards present throughout the translocation pathway derived from the interactions between host immunity and the parasite, the effect of parasites on populations, the effect of noninfectious disease agents, and the effect of stressors on host-parasite interactions. We used the reintroduction of Eurasian Cranes (Grus grus) to England to demonstrate our method. Of the 24 hazards identified, 1 was classified as high risk (coccidia) and 5 were medium risk (highly pathogenic avian influenza virus, Mycobacterium avium, Aspergillus fumigatus, tracheal worms [Syngamus sp. and Cyathostoma sp.], and Tetrameres spp.). Seventeen other hazards were considered low or very low risk. In the absence of better information on the number, identity, distribution, and pathogenicity of parasites of wild animals, there is uncertainty in the risk of disease to translocated animals and recipient populations. Surveys of parasites in source and destination populations and detailed health monitoring after release will improve the information available for future analyses of disease risk. We believe our method can be adapted to assess the risks of disease in other translocated populations.

Disease dynamics and potential mitigation among restored and wild staghorn coral,Acropora cervicornis

“…While explicit risk assessment and risk management frameworks have been proposed and applied in wildlife translocation projects, effective application requires at least qualitative knowledge of pathogens, vectors, and susceptibilities operating in the given species (e.g., Lenihan et al, 1999; Sainsbury & Vaughan-Higgins, 2012). The limited use of multidisciplinary effective diagnostic tools and lack of robust etiological characterization for coral disease in general, and in A. cervicornis in particular (Rogers, 2010; Sutherland, Porter & Torres, 2004), impairs efficient health risk management.…”

The relationship between physiological stress and wildlife disease: consequences for health and conservation

“…It is crucial that we characterise how wildlife respond to research and conservation interventions such as capture and handling (de Villiers et al 1995;Narayan et al 2012) and translocation (Kahn et al 2007) to assess risk, minimise harm and increase the efficacy of these activities. For example, it has been suggested that the stress of translocation is associated with increased risk of infectious disease in translocated wildlife (Teixeira et al 2007;Dickens et al 2010;Sainsbury and Vaughan-Higgins 2012), including recrudescence of latent and normally innocuous pathogens as well as increased vulnerability to diseases at the release site to which the translocated animals may not have been previously exposed (Mihok et al 1992). However, parallel endocrine and infection investigations have rarely been conducted before, during and after wildlife translocations or, indeed, in instances of wild capture (moving of wild animals into captivity), to investigate the influence of stress and disease in translocation success and the health of translocated and resident populations.…”

What constitutes a ‘native’ species? Insights from the Quaternary faunal record

“…For example, wild boar (Sus scrofa) has reestablished in several parts of Britain through escapes from farms, but many of these populations contain domestic pig hybrids (Wilson, 2005). Other British species, such as roe deer, crane and red kite (Milvus milvus), consist of remnant native or natural recolonist populations that have been supplemented with individuals from mainland Europe to increase their viability (Evans et al, 1999;Yalden, 1999;Sainsbury and Vaughan-Higgins, 2012). The genetic status of other native species is being altered through hybridisation with domestic or feral counterparts, for example Eurasian wildcat with domestic cat (Felis catus) (Oliveira et al, 2008;O'Brien et al, 2009).…”