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

Abstract

More than 70% of new human pathogens are zoonotic and many originate from the wildlife reservoir. Wildlife rehabilitation centres (WRC) are an easily accessible source for sample and data collection for preventive surveillance, but data collected this way may be biased. We use white storks (Ciconia ciconia) as a model to compare pathogen prevalence obtained in the field and WRC. We address factors that may affect disease prevalence data like origin, the age group and the "diseased" state of WRC admissions. In this study we compared prevalence of Escherichia coli and Salmonella spp. in the digestive tract; antibodies against West Nile virus, avian influenza and Newcastle disease virus, and antimicrobial resistance patterns of E. coli between nestling and adult wild storks established in different habitats (n=90) and storks admitted to two different WRC (n=30) in the same region. When age groups and colonies of origin were disregarded, the mean enterobacteria (E. coli, Salmonella) and viral antibody prevalence of the wild population (n=90) were similar to prevalence observed in the individuals admitted to WRC (n=30). However, in fledgling juvenile storks admitted to WRC, the prevalence of Salmonella spp. (13.3%), E. coli showing resistance to cefotaxime (37.9%) and against two antimicrobials at once (41.4%) were more similar to the prevalence in stork nestlings from landfill-associated colonies (7.9%, 37.1% and 48.6%, respectively for prevalence of Salmonella spp. and E. coli displaying, cefotaxime resistance and resistance against two antimicrobials), and significantly higher than in colonies located in natural habitats (0%; 10.5% and 15.8%, respectively). Thus, pathogen surveillance in individuals from an abundant species admitted to WRC is useful to monitor overall mean prevalence, but for certain pathogens may not be sufficient to detect differences between local populations. In addition, the ecology of the tested species and the specific temporal, spatial and age group distribution of WRC admissions have to be taken into account.

A One Health investigation of Salmonella enterica serovar Wangata in north-eastern New South Wales, Australia, 2016–2017

“…Wildlife in rehabilitation centres within the same geographical region as human cases were sampled. The use of wildlife-in-care as a proxy for pathogen surveillance of free ranging populations has been previously illustrated [13]. Swabs were used to collect faecal specimens either by direct swabbing of the animal or by collecting freshly voided faeces.…”

Trends in wildlife rehabilitation rescues and animal fate across a six-year period in New South Wales, Australia

“…[2,9,11,[21][22][23]). Single species studies are also common [15,[24][25][26][27][28] including those for species with a threatened conservation status [2,13,29,30]). Wildlife rehabilitation data have also been used more broadly for disease surveillance [24,[31][32][33][34], and in animal health science [22,35,36].…”

Syndromic surveillance for West Nile virus using raptors in rehabilitation

“…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.…”