Taming wildlife disease: bridging the gap between science and management

Abstract

Summary1. Parasites and pathogens of wildlife can threaten biodiversity, infect humans and domestic animals, and cause significant economic losses, providing incentives to manage wildlife diseases. Recent insights from disease ecology have helped transform our understanding of infectious disease dynamics and yielded new strategies to better manage wildlife diseases. Simultaneously, wildlife disease management (WDM) presents opportunities for large-scale empirical tests of disease ecology theory in diverse natural systems. 2. To assess whether the potential complementarity between WDM and disease ecology theory has been realized, we evaluate the extent to which specific concepts in disease ecology theory have been explicitly applied in peer-reviewed WDM literature. 3. While only half of WDM articles published in the past decade incorporated disease ecology theory, theory has been incorporated with increasing frequency over the past 40 years. Contrary to expectations, articles authored by academics were no more likely to apply disease ecology theory, but articles that explain unsuccessful management often do so in terms of theory. 4. Some theoretical concepts such as density-dependent transmission have been commonly applied, whereas emerging concepts such as pathogen evolutionary responses to management, biodiversity-disease relationships and within-host parasite interactions have not yet been fully integrated as management considerations. 5. Synthesis and applications. Theory-based disease management can meet the needs of both academics and managers by testing disease ecology theory and improving disease interventions. Theoretical concepts that have received limited attention to date in wildlife disease management could provide a basis for improving management and advancing disease ecology in the future.

Context‐dependent conservation responses to emerging wildlife diseases

“…Several potential disease management strategies have been proposed (Wobeser 2002;Woodhams et al 2011;Joseph et al 2013) but invasion stageappropriate management actions have not been organized into a cohesive framework, which has largely resulted in haphazard, ineffective, and, in some cases, inappropriate management actions. This, in turn, has led to missed opportunities to reduce disease-related impacts on wildlife populations.…”

Evaluating wildlife-cattle contact rates to improve the understanding of dynamics of bovine tuberculosis transmission in Michigan, USA

“…Consistent with previous work (Gortazar et al, 2011(Gortazar et al, , 2015, we focused on characterizing indirect contacts through cattle-related resources such as feed and water which are likely hot spots for pathogen contamination by wildlife species (Atwood et al, 2009;Joseph et al, 2013;Palmer and Whipple, 2006;Ward et al, 2006;Walter et al, 2012). Our findings demonstrate indirect contacts resulting from wildlife visitation to unprotected resources are of primary concern, especially when that same feed is delivered shortly afterwards to cattle.…”

Fishing diseased abalone to promote yield and conservation

“…Managing disease-impacted fisheries therefore sustains a modest harvest and protects the population at large from disease by (i) reducing parasite prevalence and (ii) maintaining stock density near, at or above the densities achieved by fishery closure. Culling is a standard but often contentious way to control terrestrial wildlife diseases [11,13], bringing animal welfare, economic and conservation considerations into conflict [12]. Wild capture fisheries resolve this conflict in part because fish are treated more as a commodity than as wildlife [17,47].…”

“…[10]). Culling infected hosts is a standard yet often contentious way to manage terrestrial wildlife diseases [11][12][13]. In marine systems, this strategy faces added challenges, such as difficulties and costs associated with diagnosing cryptic infections.…”