The wildlife‐livestock interface on extensive free‐ranging pig farms in central Spain during the “montanera” period

Abstract

The effective management of shared pathogens between wild ungulates and livestock requires the understanding of the processes of interaction between them. In this work, we studied the interspecific frequency of interaction (ifreq) and its spatiotemporal pattern between wild and domestic ungulates that coexist in free-ranging farms. For this purpose, 6 red deer, 6 wild boar, 8 Iberian pigs and 3 cattle were monitored using GPS devices during the "montanera" period (the period in which Iberian pigs are maintained in extensive conditions to feed on acorn). The ifreq was quantified for two spatiotemporal windows: 30 m -10 min, for inferring potential direct interactions (short window), and 30 m -12 days for indirect interactions (large window). Secondly, the variation in the ifreq was modelled with regard to 2 temporal (time of the day and week of the year) and 4 environmental factors (distance to water, distance to vegetation cover, Quercus density and distance to feeding points).The interactions at the short window were scarce (N = 13); however, they were very frequent at the large one (N = 37,429), with the red deer as the species with the greatest involvement in the interactions. Models showed that the time of the day and distance to water were the variables that best predicted the ifreq and they were conditioned by differences in the activity pattern of the targeted species. Food resource availability also predicted the ifreq, especially at the short window and between wild species. The results presented here highlight the role that wild ungulates may play in the transmission of pathogens to extensive livestock in general and pigs in particular and show the epidemiological risk of certain areas, periods of time and management practices (for wildlife and livestock) as well as providing useful information in the prevention of the transmission of shared pathogens.

Evolution of influenza A virus in intensive and free-range swine farms in Spain

“…High contact rates between Iberian swine and human handlers also facilitate bidirectional transmission of other pathogens ( Wiethoelter et al. 2015 ; Roxana et al. 2020 ).…”

A questionnaire survey for the assessment of wild - domestic pig interactions in a context oedema disease outbreaks among wild boars ( Sus scrofa ) in South-Eastern France.

“…In most cases, these interactions are detected by the observation of damages in the fence or the observation of crossbred offspring a few weeks later. Further studies using ecological tools (camera traps and /or telemetry devices with proximity loggers) should be implemented in order to confirm and better quantify wild boar incursions in the farms and document the potential occurrence of wild boar-domestic pig interactions in the study area (Kukielka et al, 2013;Triguero-Ocaña et al, 2021).…”

“…These two parallel developments facilitate an increasing occurrence of interactions between domestic pigs and wild boars, which can have several sanitary and environmental consequences. This phenomenon is widespread in most of the distribution area of Sus scrofa in Eurasia and this topic is raising increased international attention with the global spread of African swine fever in Europe and Asia, which can facilitate the circulation of this virus and other pathogens at the wildlife-livestock interface (Boklund et al, 2020;Jori, Payne, Stahl, Nava, & Rossi, 2018;Triguero-Ocaña et al, 2021). Several studies found in the literature have assessed the frequency and intensity of wild boar/domestic pig interactions from the ecological or behavioral perspective in the USA (Wyckoff, Henke, Campbell, Hewitt, & VerCauteren, 2009) and Europe (Wu et al, 2012).…”

Animal board invited review: Risks of zoonotic disease emergence at the interface of wildlife and livestock systems

“…Livestock exposure probability depends on contacts between wildlife and livestock. Specific studies to characterize the wildlife-livestock interface use different methods such as questionnaires to stakeholders ( Meunier et al, 2017 ), telemetric monitoring of wildlife ( Triguero-Ocaña et al, 2020 ), or rely on data analysis by modelling ( Barasona et al, 2014 ) or risk factor identification ( Sichewo et al, 2020 ). A systematic review has highlighted the wide variation and lack of consensus in the definitions of direct and indirect contacts between wild and farm animals ( Bacigalupo et al, 2020 ).…”