Prevention and Management of Infectious Diseases in Aquatic Invertebrates

Shields, Jeffrey D.

doi:10.1002/9781119256106.ch15

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 281 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On the other hand, selective predation on infected prey does not always reduce infection prevalence ( Lopez & Duffy, 2021 ), and some models have shown that when the most heavily infected individuals in a population are culled, disease prevalence may increase due to persistence of less virulent strains of the parasite which are able to establish in sparser populations ( Bolzoni & De Leo, 2013 ; Behringer et al, 2020 ). Indeed, many authors do not consider culling an effective way to manage marine infectious diseases because of the dearth of knowledge on the relative importance of other environmental drivers and mechanisms of transmission and dispersion of pathogens in the ocean, and on the spatial scales at which infective stages and host larvae may travel (reviewed in Groner et al, 2016 ; Shields, 2018 ; Glidden et al, 2022 ). In the absence of this information, culling as a potential mechanism to manage the PaV1 disease remains contentious.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These results suggest that other factors, such as small-scale habitat and community characteristics, may be influencing disease dynamics. Therefore, upon using casitas to enhance juvenile P. argus , previous baseline surveys would be advisable ( Shields, 2018 ) as well as monitoring prevalence levels at least once a year during the first few years ( e.g. , Davies et al, 2020 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Artificial shelters and marine infectious disease: no detectable effect of the use of casitas to enhance juvenile Panulirus argus in shelter-poor habitats on a viral disease dynamics

Candia-Zulbarán

Briones‐Fourzán

Negrete-Soto

et al. 2023

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Casitas, low-lying artificial shelters that mimic large crevices, are used in some fisheries for Caribbean spiny lobsters (Panulirus argus). These lobsters are highly gregarious and express communal defense of the shelter. Scaled-down casitas have been shown to increase survival, persistence, and foraging ranges of juveniles. Therefore, the use of casitas has been suggested to help enhance local populations of juvenile P. argus in Caribbean seagrass habitats, poor in natural crevice shelters, in marine protected areas. Following the emergence of Panulirus argus virus 1 (PaV1), which is lethal to juveniles of P. argus, concern was raised about the potential increase in PaV1 transmission with the use of casitas. It was then discovered that lobsters tend to avoid shelters harboring diseased conspecifics, a behavior which, alone or in conjunction with predatory culling of diseased lobsters, has been proposed as a mechanism reducing the spread of PaV1. However, this behavior may depend on the ecological context (i.e., availability of alternative shelter and immediacy of predation risk). We conducted an experiment in a lobster nursery area to examine the effect of the use of casitas on the dynamics of the PaV1 disease. We deployed 10 scaled-down casitas per site on five 1-ha sites over a reef lagoon (casita sites) and left five additional sites with no casitas (control sites). All sites were sampled 10 times every 3–4 months. Within each site, all lobsters found were counted, measured, and examined for clinical signs of the PaV1 disease. Mean density and size of lobsters significantly increased on casita sites relative to control sites, but overall prevalence levels remained similar. There was no relationship between lobster density and disease prevalence. Dispersion parameters (m and k of the negative binomial distribution) revealed that lobsters tended to avoid sharing natural crevices, but not casitas, with diseased conspecifics. These results confirm that casitas provide much needed shelter in seagrass habitats and that their large refuge area may allow distancing between healthy and diseased lobsters. On eight additional sampling times over two years, we culled all diseased lobsters observed on casita sites. During this period, disease prevalence did not decrease but rather increased and varied with site, suggesting that other factors (e.g., environmental) may be influencing the disease dynamics. Using scaled-down casitas in shelter-poor habitats may help efforts to enhance juvenile lobsters for conservation purposes, but monitoring PaV1 prevalence at least once a year during the first few years would be advisable.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Artificial shelters and marine infectious disease: no detectable effect of the use of casitas to enhance juvenile Panulirus argus in shelter-poor habitats on a viral disease dynamics

Candia-Zulbarán

Briones‐Fourzán

Negrete-Soto

et al. 2023

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Strategies for managing marine disease

Glidden

Field

Bachhuber

et al. 2022

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The incidence of emerging infectious diseases (EIDs) has increased in wildlife populations in recent years and is expected to continue to increase with global environmental change. Marine diseases are relatively understudied compared to terrestrial diseases but warrant parallel attention as they can disrupt ecosystems, cause economic loss, and threaten human livelihoods. While there are many existing tools to combat the direct and indirect consequences of EIDs, these management strategies are often insufficient or ineffective in marine habitats compared to their terrestrial counterparts, often due to fundamental differences between marine and terrestrial systems. Here, we first illustrate how the marine environment and marine organism life histories present challenges and opportunities for wildlife disease management. We then assess the application of common disease management strategies to marine versus terrestrial systems to identify those that may be most effective for marine disease outbreak prevention, response, and recovery. Finally, we recommend multiple actions that will enable more successful management of marine wildlife disease emergencies in the future. These include prioritizing marine disease research and understanding its links to climate change, improving marine ecosystem health, forming better monitoring and response networks, developing marine veterinary medicine programs, and enacting policy that addresses marine and other wildlife diseases. Overall, we encourage a more proactive rather than reactive approach to marine wildlife disease management and emphasize that multi-disciplinary collaborations are crucial to managing marine wildlife health.

show abstract