What attracts elk onto cattle pasture? Implications for inter-species disease transmission

Pruvot, Mathieu; Seidel, Dana Paige; Boyce, Mark S.; Musiani, Marco; Massolo, Alessandro; Kutz, Susan; Orsel, Karin

doi:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2014.08.010

Cited by 18 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other methods used to monitor wildlife were direct visualisation (21; 17%), farmer questioning (20; 16%), radio-transmitters (17; 14%), activity signs (15; 12%) and proximity loggers (7; 6%). Some studies utilised more than one observation method, and therefore the numbers of studies exceed 122 (100%) Studies that monitored livestock tended to use the same methods as for wildlife, although 10 studies dedicated fewer resources to monitor livestock; for example ( Pruvot et al, 2014 ) used GPS collars to monitor wild deer and farmer questioning to monitor cattle behaviour. Studies that did not monitor livestock tended to infer wildlife-livestock contact from monitoring only the activities of wildlife on or around livestock holdings, such as on pasture, in buildings and the shared use of resources such as livestock feed.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a unified generic framework to define and observe contacts between livestock and wildlife: a systematic review

Bacigalupo

Dixon

Gubbins

et al. 2020

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wild animals are the source of many pathogens of livestock and humans. Concerns about the potential transmission of economically important and zoonotic diseases from wildlife have led to increased surveillance at the livestock-wildlife interface. Knowledge of the types, frequency and duration of contacts between livestock and wildlife is necessary to identify risk factors for disease transmission and to design possible mitigation strategies. Observing the behaviour of many wildlife species is challenging due to their cryptic nature and avoidance of humans, meaning there are relatively few studies in this area. Further, a consensus on the definition of what constitutes a ‘contact’ between wildlife and livestock is lacking. A systematic review was conducted to investigate which livestock-wildlife contacts have been studied and why, as well as the methods used to observe each species. Over 30,000 publications were screened, of which 122 fulfilled specific criteria for inclusion in the analysis. The majority of studies examined cattle contacts with badgers or with deer; studies involving wild pig contacts with cattle or with domestic pigs were the next most frequent. There was a range of observational methods including motion-activated cameras and global positioning system collars. As a result of the wide variation and lack of consensus in the definitions of direct and indirect contacts, we developed a unified framework to define livestock-wildlife contacts that is sufficiently flexible to be applied to most wildlife and livestock species for non-vector-borne diseases. We hope this framework will help standardise the collection and reporting of contact data; a valuable step towards being able to compare the efficacy of wildlife-livestock observation methods. In doing so, it may aid the development of better disease transmission models and improve the design and effectiveness of interventions to reduce or prevent disease transmission.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a unified generic framework to define and observe contacts between livestock and wildlife: a systematic review

Bacigalupo

Dixon

Gubbins

et al. 2020

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In Spain also, red deer were rarely observed on feeding points compared to water points or pastures (20, 34, 35). In contrast, wild deer from North America such as elks ( C. elaphus ) and white-tailed deer use cattle-feeding areas (42–44). We may hypothesize that the higher deer densities [around 10 deer/km 2 (43)] and a scarcer food availability observed in these areas, especially in winter, explain this difference.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wildlife Interactions on Baited Places and Waterholes in a French Area Infected by Bovine Tuberculosis

Payne

Philipon

Hars³

et al. 2017

Front. Vet. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interactions among wildlife species are major drivers for the transmission of multi-host pathogens, such as Mycobacterium bovis, which also affect livestock. Although France is officially free from bovine tuberculosis (bTB), some areas are still harboring infection in cattle and wildlife. We aimed at characterizing the visits of susceptible wild species (badger, red deer, and wild boar) at baited places and waterholes, considered as possible hotspots for contacts. We described the visits in terms of frequency, duration, and number of individuals and studied the influence of the season. Then, we estimated the frequency of intraspecies and interspecies interactions occurring at baited places and waterholes which may lead to bTB transmission, including direct and indirect contacts through the soil or water. We used camera traps placed on baited places and waterholes on 13 locations monitored during 21 months. The number of visits, their duration, and the number of individuals per visit were analyzed by generalized linear mixed models for each targeted species. The frequency of the interspecies and intraspecies interactions was also analyzed separately. The season, the type of site (baited place or waterhole), and the location were the explanatory variables. Badgers’ visits and interactions were more frequent than for other species (mean: 0.60 visit/day and 5.42 interactions/day) especially on baited places. Red deer only visited waterholes. Wild boars visited most often baited places in spring–summer and waterholes in autumn–winter. They came in higher number than other species, especially on baited places. Direct interactions were uncommon. The most frequent interspecies interactions occurred between red deer and wild boar (mean: 4.02 interactions/day). Baited places and waterholes are important interfaces between the different wild species involved in the bTB multi-host system in this area. They can thus promote intraspecies and interspecies bTB transmission. Baiting ban should be carried on and management of waterholes should be considered as tool to limit the spread of bTB in wildlife.

show abstract

“…frequency, intensity, spatial and temporal distribution), different methodical approaches can be implemented. The use of GPS radiotracking (collars) in different interface areas (Miguel et al., ; Pruvot et al., ) or the use of camera traps (Kukielka et al., ) has proven to provide accurate spatial and temporal data on interactions between domestic and wildlife species. However, its implementation requires long‐term monitoring and resources.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental Evaluation of FaecalEscherichia coliand Hepatitis E Virus as Biological Indicators of Contacts Between Domestic Pigs and Eurasian Wild Boar

Barth

Geue

Hinsching

et al. 2015

Transbound Emerg Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Domestic pigs and Eurasian wild boar (Sus scrofa) share several important viral and bacterial pathogens. Therefore, direct and indirect contacts between domestic pigs and wild boar present a risk of pathogen spillover and can lead to long-term perpetuation of infection. Biological indicators could be a powerful tool to understand and characterize contacts between wild boar and domestic pigs. Here, faecal Escherichia coli and Hepatitis E virus (HEV) were explored as potential biological indicators under experimental conditions. The data gained in our pilot study suggest that faecal E. coli can be used as biological indicator of contact between wild boar and domestic pig. For HEV, faecal transmission was also confirmed. However, molecular studies on full-genome basis did not reveal markers that would allow tracing of transmission direction. Based on these promising results, future field studies will especially target the practicability of E. coli microbiome molecular typing as surrogate of contacts at the wildlife-livestock interface.

show abstract

What attracts elk onto cattle pasture? Implications for inter-species disease transmission

Cited by 18 publications

References 58 publications

Towards a unified generic framework to define and observe contacts between livestock and wildlife: a systematic review

Towards a unified generic framework to define and observe contacts between livestock and wildlife: a systematic review

Wildlife Interactions on Baited Places and Waterholes in a French Area Infected by Bovine Tuberculosis

Experimental Evaluation of FaecalEscherichia coliand Hepatitis E Virus as Biological Indicators of Contacts Between Domestic Pigs and Eurasian Wild Boar

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About