Movement patterns of free-roaming dogs on heterogeneous urban landscapes: Implications for rabies control

Abstract

In 2015, a case of canine rabies in Arequipa, Peru indicated the re-emergence of rabies virus in the city. Despite mass dog vaccination campaigns across the city and reactive ring vaccination and other control activities around positive cases (e.g. elimination of unowned dogs), the outbreak has spread. Here we explore how the urban landscape of Arequipa affects the movement patterns of free-roaming dogs, the main reservoirs of the rabies virus in the area. We tracked 23 free-roaming dogs using Global Positioning System (GPS) collars. We analyzed the spatio-temporal GPS data using the time-local convex hull method. Dog movement patterns varied across local environments. We found that water channels, an urban feature of Arequipa that are dry most of the year, promote movement. Dogs that used the water channels move further, faster and more directionally than dogs that do not. Our findings suggest that water channels can be used by dogs as 'highways' to transverse the city and have the potential to spread disease far beyond the radius of control practices. Control efforts should focus on a robust vaccination campaign attuned to the geography of the city, and not limited to small-scale rings surrounding cases.

Comparative Study of Free-Roaming Domestic Dog Management and Roaming Behavior Across Four Countries: Chad, Guatemala, Indonesia, and Uganda

“…Free-roaming domestic dog (FRDD) movements have been studied in various countries across the world. Previous studies involved dogs living in Australia (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8); Latin America, including Brazil (9, 10), Mexico (11,12), and Chile (13)(14)(15)(16); and Asia, including India (17), Tibet (18), and Kyrgyzstan (19). To the best of our knowledge, no study investigated FRDD roaming behavior in Africa so far.…”

“…To the best of our knowledge, no study investigated FRDD roaming behavior in Africa so far. Often, data were collected using Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking devices ( 1 – 4 , 6 – 8 , 11 – 16 , 18 – 20 ), but other tools, such as capture–recapture ( 10 , 21 ) or interviews ( 9 ), were also used to collect data on FRDD roaming behavior. Home range ( 2 , 14 , 17 , 19 ), the area a dog commonly uses for normal activities, such as breeding or foraging, and distance from home ( 12 , 13 , 20 ) were applied to describe and investigate dog roaming behavior.…”

“…Home range ( 2 , 14 , 17 , 19 ), the area a dog commonly uses for normal activities, such as breeding or foraging, and distance from home ( 12 , 13 , 20 ) were applied to describe and investigate dog roaming behavior. These studies improved knowledge on FRDD behavior by investigating dog movements in relation to their habitat ( 15 , 16 ), interactions with wildlife ( 7 , 12 ), impact of dog characteristics ( 6 , 8 , 10 , 13 , 22 ), or sterilization ( 10 , 14 ) on dog roaming behavior.…”

“…Study design differences include type of data collected (georeferenced capture sites or GPS collar locations), data collection period [from hours ( 19 ) to months ( 3 )], or time interval between GPS fixes [from 15 s ( 5 ) to 30 min ( 1 )]. Methodological differences can be found for home range size estimations, varying between minimum convex polygon (MCP) ( 6 , 11 , 13 , 14 , 18 ), the characteristic hull polygon ( 19 ), the time localized convex Hull (T-LoCoH) ( 16 ), the fixed kernel density distribution ( 1 ), and the biased random bridge method (BRB) ( 2 – 4 ). Dürr et al compared several methods including the MCP, fixed kernel density distribution, T-LoCoH, and BRB and concluded that the BRB was more suitable for FRDD home range size estimation as it considers tracks and not only locations collected by the GPS devices ( 2 ).…”

Current characteristics of animal rabies cases in Thailand and relevant risk factors identified by a spatial modeling approach

“…Free-roaming behavior increases contact rates among dogs [35,36] and hence results in a higher chance of rabies exposure. Consequently, the risk of rabies infection was inevitably increased, especially among those unvaccinated [37][38][39]. Moreover, a high turnover rate was observed among freeroaming dogs living in high dog density areas causing difficulty in dog population management and rabies control [40].…”