Risk Assessment and Contingency Planning for Exotic Disease Introductions

Jackson, Vicky; Huntley, Selene J.; Tomlinson, Alex; Smith, Graham C.; Taylor, Mike; Delahay, Richard J.

doi:10.1007/978-4-431-77134-0_9

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Concomitant with the development of international policy on livestock diseases and trade, there has been increased awareness of disease issues in wildlife management and conservation as they relate to the translocation, reintroduction, and recovery of individual animals and populations (Scott 1988, Karesh 1993, Karesh and Cook 1995, Lyles and Dobson 1993, Woodford and Rossiter 1993, Cunningham 1996, Woodroffe 1999, Deem et al 2000, Deem et al 2001, Lafferty and Gerber 2002, Nishi et al 2002b, Wobeser 2002. Similar to livestock trade, the laws and recommendations regarding animal health for international movement of wildlife are based on the Animal Health Code developed by the OIE, and consequently risk assessment (Box 6) has also been accepted as a tool to evaluate policy options for wildlife health management (Woodford and Rossiter 1993, IUCN 1998, Corn and Nettles 2001, Woodford 2001, IUCN 2002, Leighton 2002, Jackson et al 2009). An important risk-based principle is that, from a scientific perspective, it is impossible to prove the complete absence of infection in a population and disease freedom cannot be conclusively demonstrated (Zepeda et al 2005).…”

Section: Risk Analysis As a Framework For "Best Practices" In Wildlifmentioning

confidence: 99%

ABS Working Paper 3 - A review of best practices and principles for bison disease issues: Greater Yellowstone and wood buffalo areas.

Nishi¹

2010

American Bison Society Working Paper Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Risk Analysis As a Framework For "Best Practices" In Wildlifmentioning

confidence: 99%

ABS Working Paper 3 - A review of best practices and principles for bison disease issues: Greater Yellowstone and wood buffalo areas.

Nishi¹

2010

American Bison Society Working Paper Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Where outbreaks occur in domestic animals and wildlife due to the introduction of a pathogen into a previously uninfected area, prompt action may be required to eliminate disease, and this is often embodied in contingency planning (Jackson et al., 2009). In outbreak situations, the need to act quickly may require decisions to be taken based on incomplete data and with only limited planning and tools available, whilst the availability of resources and ethical considerations impose the need to act proportionately.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Defining and testing a wildlife intervention framework for exotic disease control

Smith

Brough

Podgórski

et al. 2022

Ecol Sol and Evidence

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. Outbreaks of disease at the wildlife-livestock interface may require management interventions. Where they involve exotic/non-endemic pathogens in wildlife, then such plans may need to be rapidly conceived and implemented to prevent further disease spread. However, detailed information on the distribution of infection is likely to be absent, whilst limited resources and tools, and ethical considerations impose constraints on what is possible and proportionate.2. We describe four considerations to inform decision-making on whether to intervene. With reference to two recent examples (bovine tuberculosis in badgers in an otherwise disease-free area, and African swine fever in wild boar in central Europe), we outline six steps to guide implementation. 3. In both examples, a Disease Control Area was defined by determining a minimum infected area (MIA) and a buffer zone based on wildlife ecology and the potential for unrecorded spread of infection. The total area was the subject of management intervention, with the level of infection used to inform adaptive management.4. The MIA is defined as the minimum area that could contain all infected wildlife, given our current level of information, with a surrounding buffer zone to account for the possibility of further onward spread. In our examples, the zones were defined using a combination of field data and existing knowledge of host spatial organization and movement.5. The MIA (plus buffer zone) approach provides a framework for optimizing the targeting of resources in a proportionate response to a disease outbreak. Where infected animals occur outside the MIA, our examples show how wildlife management has been adapted. In principle, this approach is suitable for the delivery of disease outbreak control in wildlife, whether through culling, vaccination or other forms of control.

show abstract

“…Results of passive surveillance give researchers insight into what is currently causing or has previously caused morbidity and mortality. Active surveillance consists of targeted investigations of pathogens, toxicants, and diseases through systematic collections of animals or their samples [ 2 ]. Through active surveillance, researchers can assess current and future risk to outbreaks and diseases.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surveillance for diseases, pathogens, and toxicants of muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) in Pennsylvania and surrounding regions

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using diagnostic data and contemporary sampling efforts, we conducted surveillance for a diversity of pathogens, toxicants, and diseases of muskrats (Ondatra zibethicus). Between 1977 and 2019, 26 diagnostic cases were examined from Kansas and throughout the Southeast and Mid-Atlantic, USA. We identified multiple causes of mortality in muskrats, but trauma (8/26), Tyzzer’s disease (5/6), and cysticercosis (5/26) were the most common. We also conducted necropsies, during November 2018—January 2019 Pennsylvania muskrat trapping season, on 380 trapper-harvested muskrat carcasses after the pelt was removed. Tissue samples and exudate were tested for presence of or exposure to a suite of pathogens and contaminants. Gastrointestinal tracts were examined for helminths. Intestinal helminths were present in 39.2% of necropsied muskrats, with Hymenolepis spp. (62%) and echinostome spp. (44%) being the most common Molecular testing identified a low prevalence of infection with Clostridium piliforme in the feces and Sarcocystis spp. in the heart. We detected a low seroprevalence to Toxoplasma gondii (1/380). No muskrats were positive for Francisella tularensis or Babesia spp. Cysticercosis was detected in 20% (5/26) of diagnostic cases and 15% (57/380) of our trapper-harvested muskrats. Toxic concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, lead, or mercury were not detected in tested liver samples. Copper, molybdenum, and zinc concentrations were detected at acceptable levels comparative to previous studies. Parasite intensity and abundance were typical of historic reports; however, younger muskrats had higher intensity of infection than older muskrats which is contradictory to what has been previously reported. A diversity of pathogens and contaminants have been reported from muskrats, but the associated disease impacts are poorly understood. Our data are consistent with historic reports and highlight the wide range of parasites, pathogens and contaminants harbored by muskrats in Pennsylvania. The data collected are a critical component in assessing overall muskrat health and serve as a basis for understanding the impacts of disease on recent muskrat population declines.

show abstract

Risk Assessment and Contingency Planning for Exotic Disease Introductions

Cited by 7 publications

References 0 publications

ABS Working Paper 3 - A review of best practices and principles for bison disease issues: Greater Yellowstone and wood buffalo areas.

ABS Working Paper 3 - A review of best practices and principles for bison disease issues: Greater Yellowstone and wood buffalo areas.

Defining and testing a wildlife intervention framework for exotic disease control

Surveillance for diseases, pathogens, and toxicants of muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) in Pennsylvania and surrounding regions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About