Efficacy of Wildlife Rehabilitation Centers in Surveillance and Monitoring of Pathogen Activity: A Case Study With West Nile Virus

Abstract

ABSTRACT:Surveillance is critical for identifying and monitoring pathogen activity in wildlife populations, but often is cost-and time-prohibitive and logistically challenging. We tested the hypothesis that wildlife rehabilitation centers are useful for monitoring pathogen activity using West Nile virus (WNV) as a case study. We hypothesized that birds submitted to wildlife rehabilitation centers would have a similar prevalence of antibody to WNV as free-ranging birds. From 2008 to 2010, we collected sera from peridomestic birds submitted to the Wildlife Care Clinic (WCC), a wildlife rehabilitation center in central Iowa, and tested them for antibodies to WNV. We also collected and tested sera from free-ranging peridomestic birds in the area from which approximately 50% of WCC submissions historically originated. Prevalences of WNV antibodies in free-ranging birds and in peridomestic WCC birds were 2.3% (44/1,936) and 2.8% (2/72), respectively. However, none of the birds submitted to the WCC from the area where we captured free-ranging birds had antibodies (0/29). Our results indicate that rehabilitation facilities are not likely to be useful for monitoring WNV activity at small spatial scales or over short-time periods due to the low endemic prevalence of WNV, and low and variable submission rates. However, at larger spatial scales (ca. nine Iowa counties) WNV antibody prevalence in peridomestic birds submitted to the WCC was similar to that of free-ranging birds. Although limitations to using rehabilitation birds to monitor WNV must be considered, testing these birds could be useful for monitoring WNV activity regionally, especially with many states limiting surveillance due to budgetary constraints.

Use of wildlife rehabilitation centres in pathogen surveillance: A case study in white storks (Ciconia ciconia)

“…This is in contrast to the observation by Randall et al (2012) who concluded that WNV exposure in individuals admitted to rehabilitation centres was not representative of the seroprevalence of WNV in natural populations of the same species.…”

Veterinary treatment and rehabilitation of indigenous wildlife

“…The reporting of wildlife diseases can be an important part of national disease surveillance affecting conservation, livestock diseases and zoonoses (Randall et al. ). The need to investigate and monitor wildlife for new and emerging infectious diseases of man and other species has been discussed on a Europe wide basis (Artois et al.…”

Syndromic surveillance for West Nile virus using raptors in rehabilitation

“…Furthermore, although the need for such a monitoring system has been identified, challenges such as cost, time, case acquisition, and practicality of sampling strategies remain difficult to overcome. Sample collection is currently limited to expensive active surveillance activities, often requiring trapping of animals, or convenience or passive sampling of hunted animals or wildlife submitted to public health or wildlife agencies [ 6 ].…”

“…It is estimated that more than 500,000 amphibians, reptiles, birds, and marine and terrestrial mammals are admitted into wildlife rehabilitators across the United States annually [ 5 ], representing a diverse array of animal species from disparate geographic regions and a range of ecosystems. Use of wildlife rehabilitation centers as an alternative means of monitoring wildlife and environmental health has been proposed [ 5 , 6 , 9 – 13 ]. However, there are a number of challenges to the routine use of rehabilitation center data for syndromic surveillance, including: absence of specific surveillance goals and objectives; lack of comprehensive, integrated database systems; limited infrastructure for wildlife rehabilitators; and data quality-, integrity-, and timeline-related issues.…”