Domestic Dogs and Wild Foxes Interactions in a Wildlife-Domestic Interface of North-Central Chile: Implications for Multi-Host Pathogen Transmission

Abstract

Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) often cohabite at interfaces shared by humans and wildlife, interacting with wild canids as predators, prey, competitors and reservoirs of several multi-host pathogens, such as canid-borne micro and macro parasites that could impact on wildlife, livestock and public health. However, spatio-temporal patterns of indirect interactions as promoters of pathogen transfer between domestic and wild canids are largely unknown. In this study, we used camera traps to describe the activity patterns and habitat use of dogs, chilla (Lycalopex griseus) and culpeo (Lycalopex culpaeus) foxes and identify the local-scale factors that may affect the frequency of dog-fox interactions through an anthropization gradient of the Coquimbo region, Chile. We assessed local-scale variables that may predict the number of interactions between dogs and foxes, and compared the time interval between dog-culpeo and dog-chilla interactions. Our findings suggested that closeness to urbanized zones predicts the frequency of indirect interactions between dogs and foxes. We found higher number of dog-fox interactions (60 interactions) at a periurban site adjacent to two coastal towns (Tongoy and Guanaqueros), compared to other two more undisturbed sites (12 interactions) increasingly distanced from urbanized areas. We showed that dogs interacted more frequently with chilla foxes (57 interactions) than with culpeo foxes (15 interactions), and the first interaction type occurred almost exclusively at the periurban site, where dogs and chillas were more frequently detected than in the other sites. We detected a marked temporal segregation between dogs and foxes, but dog-chilla interactions resulted in shorter time intervals (2.5 median days) compared to dog-culpeo interactions (7.6 median days), suggesting a higher potential risk of pathogen spillover between the first species pairing. Based on previous studies, we suggest periurban zones may constitute a potential focus of pathogen exposure between dog and fox populations in the study area. Our research contributes to improving the knowledge on the spatio-temporal patterns of interspecific contact between invasive and native carnivores within the context of multi-host pathogen dynamics. Our outcomes will inform theoretical epidemiological models designed to predict and minimize the contact risk between domestic and threatened species, guiding effective control strategies at the wildlife-domestic interface.

Examining the paradox of urban disease ecology by linking the perspectives of Urban One Health and Ecology with Cities

“…For example, in Europe dogs and other canids (e.g., European red fox) living in urban-forest interfaces are vectors of canine parvovirus, rabies, Echinococcus multilocularis, Leishmania infantum, Giardia duodenalis, Babesia canis, and Toxoplasma gondii (Bradley and Altizer 2007;Otranto et al 2015). In Chile, interactions between domestic dogs and wild foxes created opportunities for pathogen host shifts between these animals, potentially affecting animal health (Hernández et al 2021). Humans living in proximity Synthesizing Urban One Health and Ecology with Cities approaches can be challenging for many reasons.…”

Rabies Elimination: Is It Feasible without Considering Wildlife?

“…However, no human casualties due to spillover of rabies virus directly from wild animals to humans have been reported [19]. ere exists an ongoing risk of spillover of rabies from wild mammals to urban dogs (both stray and owned) population [23], livestock [24], and humans [25][26][27][28].…”

“…However, no human casualties due to spillover of rabies virus directly from wild animals to humans have been reported [ 19 ]. There exists an ongoing risk of spillover of rabies from wild mammals to urban dogs (both stray and owned) population [ 23 ], livestock [ 24 ], and humans [ 25 – 28 ]. This spillover has also been observed in introduced foxes which act as carrier and spread disease to their prey animals such as lambs, goat kids, and others [ 24 ].…”

Cross-correlation and time series analysis of rabies in different animal species in Nepal from 2005 to 2018

“…There exists a constant risk of rabies spillover from wild mammals to the urban dog (stray and owned) population [ 22 ], livestock [ 23 ], and humans [ 24 , 25 ]. Most cases of rabies in Nepal are caused by dogs, but even if a dog is immunized, other animals in the area can still spread the disease and maintain the virus cycle in different ecosystems and landscapes [ 23 ].…”