Assessing the risk of human‐to‐wildlife pathogen transmission for conservation and public health

Anna C. Fagre,Lily E. Cohen,Evan A. Eskew,Max Farrell,Emma Glennon,Maxwell B. Joseph,Hannah K. Frank,Sadie J. Ryan,Colin J Carlson,Gregory F. Albery,Richard Ostfeld

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.14003

IF: 11.274

2022-03-23

Ecology Letters

Abstract:Ecology Letters, EarlyView.

ecology

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The Ecology of Pathogen Spillover and Disease Emergence at the Human-Wildlife-Environment Interface

Kathleen A. Alexander,Colin J. Carlson,Bryan L. Lewis,Wayne M. Getz,Madhav V. Marathe,Stephen G. Eubank,Claire E. Sanderson,Jason K. Blackburn

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92373-4_8

2018-01-01

Abstract:Novel diseases are increasingly emerging into human populations through the complex—and often, unseen—stepwise process of spillover from a combination of wildlife, livestock, vectors, and the abiotic environment. Characterizing and modeling the spillover interface are a key part of how eco-epidemiologists respond to the growing global burden of emerging infectious diseases; but the diversity of pathogen life cycles and transmission modes poses a complex challenge for ecologists and clinicians alike. We review our current understanding of the spillover process and present a framework that relates spillover rates and human-to-human transmissibility to the basic reproduction number (R0). Using pathogens that exemplify important transmission pathways (anthrax, Ebola, influenza, and Zika), we illustrate key aspects of the spillover interface and discuss implications to public health and management of emerging infectious disease.
Implications of Zoonoses From Hunting and Use of Wildlife in North American Arctic and Boreal Biomes: Pandemic Potential, Monitoring, and Mitigation

Lucy O Keatts,Martin Robards,Sarah H Olson,Karsten Hueffer,Stephen J Insley,Damien O Joly,Susan Kutz,David S Lee,Cheryl-Lesley B Chetkiewicz,Stéphane Lair,Nicholas D Preston,Mathieu Pruvot,Justina C Ray,Donald Reid,Jonathan M Sleeman,Raphaela Stimmelmayr,Craig Stephen,Chris Walzer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.627654

2021-05-05

Abstract:The COVID-19 pandemic has re-focused attention on mechanisms that lead to zoonotic disease spillover and spread. Commercial wildlife trade, and associated markets, are recognized mechanisms for zoonotic disease emergence, resulting in a growing global conversation around reducing human disease risks from spillover associated with hunting, trade, and consumption of wild animals. These discussions are especially relevant to people who rely on harvesting wildlife to meet nutritional, and cultural needs, including those in Arctic and boreal regions. Global policies around wildlife use and trade can impact food sovereignty and security, especially of Indigenous Peoples. We reviewed known zoonotic pathogens and current risks of transmission from wildlife (including fish) to humans in North American Arctic and boreal biomes, and evaluated the epidemic and pandemic potential of these zoonoses. We discuss future concerns, and consider monitoring and mitigation measures in these changing socio-ecological systems. While multiple zoonotic pathogens circulate in these systems, risks to humans are mostly limited to individual illness or local community outbreaks. These regions are relatively remote, subject to very cold temperatures, have relatively low wildlife, domestic animal, and pathogen diversity, and in many cases low density, including of humans. Hence, favorable conditions for emergence of novel diseases or major amplification of a spillover event are currently not present. The greatest risk to northern communities from pathogens of pandemic potential is via introduction with humans visiting from other areas. However, Arctic and boreal ecosystems are undergoing rapid changes through climate warming, habitat encroachment, and development; all of which can change host and pathogen relationships, thereby affecting the probability of the emergence of new (and re-emergence of old) zoonoses. Indigenous leadership and engagement in disease monitoring, prevention and response, is vital from the outset, and would increase the success of such efforts, as well as ensure the protection of Indigenous rights as outlined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Partnering with northern communities and including Indigenous Knowledge Systems would improve the timeliness, and likelihood, of detecting emerging zoonotic risks, and contextualize risk assessments to the unique human-wildlife relationships present in northern biomes.
One Health, emerging infectious diseases and wildlife: two decades of progress?

Andrew A. Cunningham,Peter Daszak,James L. N. Wood

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2016.0167

2017-06-05

Abstract:Infectious diseases affect people, domestic animals and wildlife alike, with many pathogens being able to infect multiple species. Fifty years ago, following the wide-scale manufacture and use of antibiotics and vaccines, it seemed that the battle against infections was being won for the human population. Since then, however, and in addition to increasing antimicrobial resistance among bacterial pathogens, there has been an increase in the emergence of, mostly viral, zoonotic diseases from wildlife, sometimes causing fatal outbreaks of epidemic proportions. Concurrently, infectious disease has been identified as an increasing threat to wildlife conservation. A synthesis published in 2000 showed common anthropogenic drivers of disease threats to biodiversity and human health, including encroachment and destruction of wildlife habitat and the human-assisted spread of pathogens. Almost two decades later, the situation has not changed and, despite improved knowledge of the underlying causes, little has been done at the policy level to address these threats. For the sake of public health and wellbeing, human-kind needs to work better to conserve nature and preserve the ecosystem services, including disease regulation, that biodiversity provides while also understanding and mitigating activities which lead to disease emergence. We consider that holistic, One Health approaches to the management and mitigation of the risks of emerging infectious diseases have the greatest chance of success. This article is part of the themed issue ‘One Health for a changing world: zoonoses, ecosystems and human well-being’.
Population and community consequences of perceived risk from humans in wildlife

Justine A. Smith,Megan E. McDaniels,Scott D. Peacor,Ellen C. Bolas,Michael J. Cherry,Nathan J. Dorn,Olivia K. Feldman,David L. Kimbro,Emily K. Leonhardt,Nicole E. Peckham,Michael J. Sheriff,Kaitlyn M. Gaynor

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.14456

IF: 11.274

2024-06-23

Ecology Letters

Abstract:Demographic costs of behavioural and physiological responses to human activities are often inferred yet rarely tested. Existing literature on such effects is highly biased and limited. Future work in this area should draw from predator–prey theory and can inform conservation and management of wildlife. Human activities catalyse risk avoidance behaviours in wildlife across taxa and systems. However, the broader ecological significance of human‐induced risk perception remains unclear, with a limited understanding of how phenotypic responses scale up to affect population or community dynamics. We present a framework informed by predator–prey ecology to predict the occurrence of non‐consumptive effects (NCE) and trait‐mediated indirect effects (TMIE) of anthropogenic disturbances. We report evidence from a comprehensive review of the different types of human‐induced behavioural and physiological phenotypic changes and their influence on vital rates and population parameters in wildlife. Evidence for human‐induced NCEs and TMIEs is mixed, with half of published studies finding a relationship between human activities, phenotypic change and population outcomes. The net effects of anthropogenic NCEs and TMIEs depend on the mismatch between the phenotypic response and the lethality of human activity. However, strong research biases in taxa, systems, human disturbance types and demographic measures prevent unified inference about the prevalence of population responses to human activities. Coexistence with and conservation of wildlife requires additional research linking human‐induced phenotypic change to population and community outcomes.

ecology
The influence of social and spatial processes on the epidemiology of environmentally transmitted pathogens in wildlife: implications for management

Aakash Pandey,Chris Wojan,Abigail Feuka,Meggan E Craft,Kezia Manlove,Kim M Pepin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2022.0532

2024-10-21

Abstract:Social and spatial structures of host populations play important roles in pathogen transmission. For environmentally transmitted pathogens, the host space use interacts with both the host social structure and the pathogen's environmental persistence (which determines the time-lag across which two hosts can transmit). Together, these factors shape the epidemiological dynamics of environmentally transmitted pathogens. While the importance of both social and spatial structures and environmental pathogen persistence has long been recognized in epidemiology, they are often considered separately. A better understanding of how these factors interact to determine disease dynamics is required for developing robust surveillance and management strategies. Here, we use a simple agent-based model where we vary host mobility (spatial), host gregariousness (social) and pathogen decay (environmental persistence), each from low to high levels to uncover how they affect epidemiological dynamics. By comparing epidemic peak, time to epidemic peak and final epidemic size, we show that longer infectious periods, higher group mobility, larger group size and longer pathogen persistence lead to larger, faster growing outbreaks, and explore how these processes interact to determine epidemiological outcomes such as the epidemic peak and the final epidemic size. We identify general principles that can be used for planning surveillance and control for wildlife host-pathogen systems with environmental transmission across a range of spatial behaviour, social structure and pathogen decay rates. This article is part of the theme issue 'The spatial-social interface: a theoretical and empirical integration'.
Post COVID-19: a solution scan of options for preventing future zoonotic epidemics

Silviu O Petrovan,David C Aldridge,Harriet Bartlett,Andrew J Bladon,Hollie Booth,Steven Broad,Donald M Broom,Neil D Burgess,Sarah Cleaveland,Andrew A Cunningham,Maurizio Ferri,Amy Hinsley,Fangyuan Hua,Alice C Hughes,Kate Jones,Moira Kelly,George Mayes,Milorad Radakovic,Chinedu A Ugwu,Nasir Uddin,Diogo Veríssimo,Christian Walzer,Thomas B White,James L Wood,William J Sutherland

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12774

Abstract:The crisis generated by the emergence and pandemic spread of COVID-19 has thrown into the global spotlight the dangers associated with novel diseases, as well as the key role of animals, especially wild animals, as potential sources of pathogens to humans. There is a widespread demand for a new relationship with wild and domestic animals, including suggested bans on hunting, wildlife trade, wet markets or consumption of wild animals. However, such policies risk ignoring essential elements of the problem as well as alienating and increasing hardship for local communities across the world, and might be unachievable at scale. There is thus a need for a more complex package of policy and practical responses. We undertook a solution scan to identify and collate 161 possible options for reducing the risks of further epidemic disease transmission from animals to humans, including potential further SARS-CoV-2 transmission (original or variants). We include all categories of animals in our responses (i.e. wildlife, captive, unmanaged/feral and domestic livestock and pets) and focus on pathogens (especially viruses) that, once transmitted from animals to humans, could acquire epidemic potential through high rates of human-to-human transmission. This excludes measures to prevent well-known zoonotic diseases, such as rabies, that cannot readily transmit between humans. We focused solutions on societal measures, excluding the development of vaccines and other preventive therapeutic medicine and veterinary medicine options that are discussed elsewhere. We derived our solutions through reading the scientific literature, NGO position papers, and industry guidelines, collating our own experiences, and consulting experts in different fields. Herein, we review the major zoonotic transmission pathways and present an extensive list of options. The potential solutions are organised according to the key stages of the trade chain and encompass solutions that can be applied at the local, regional and international scales. This is a set of options targeted at practitioners and policy makers to encourage careful examination of possible courses of action, validating their impact and documenting outcomes.
Risk of human‐to‐wildlife transmission of SARS‐CoV‐2

Sophie Gryseels,Luc De Bruyn,Ralf Gyselings,Sébastien Calvignac‐Spencer,Fabian H. Leendertz,Herwig Leirs

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/mam.12225

2020-10-06

Mammal Review

Abstract:<p>It has been a long time since the world has experienced a pandemic with such a rapid devastating impact as the current COVID‐19 pandemic. The causative agent, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2), is unusual in that it appears capable of infecting many different mammal species. As a significant proportion of people worldwide are infected with SARS‐CoV‐2 and may spread the infection unknowingly before symptoms occur or without any symptoms ever occurring, there is a non‐negligible risk of humans spreading SARS‐CoV‐2 to wildlife, in particular to wild non‐human mammals. Because of SARS‐CoV‐2's apparent evolutionary origins in bats and reports of humans transmitting the virus to pets and zoo animals, regulations for the prevention of human‐to‐animal transmission have so far focused mostly on these animal groups. We summarise recent studies and reports that show that a wide range of distantly related mammals are likely to be susceptible to SARS‐CoV‐2, and that susceptibility or resistance to the virus is, in general, not predictable, or only predictable to some extent, from phylogenetic proximity to known susceptible or resistant hosts. In the absence of solid evidence on the susceptibility and resistance to SARS‐CoV‐2 for each of the >6500 mammal species, we argue that sanitary precautions should be taken by humans interacting with any other mammal species in the wild. Preventing human‐to‐wildlife SARS‐CoV‐2 transmission is important to protect these animals (some of which are classed as threatened) from disease, but also to avoid establishment of novel SARS‐CoV‐2 reservoirs in wild mammals. The risk of repeated re‐infection of humans from such a wildlife reservoir could severely hamper SARS‐CoV‐2 control efforts. Activities during which direct or indirect interaction with wild mammals may occur include wildlife research, conservation activities, forestry work, pest control, management of feral populations, ecological consultancy work, management of protected areas and natural environments, wildlife tourism and wildlife rehabilitation in animal shelters. During such activities, we recommend sanitary precautions, such as physical distancing, wearing face masks and gloves, and frequent decontamination, which are very similar to regulations currently imposed to prevent transmission among humans. We further recommend active surveillance of domestic and feral animals that could act as SARS‐CoV‐2 intermediate hosts between humans and wild mammals.</p>

ecology,zoology
Impact of joint interactions with humans and social interactions with conspecifics on the risk of zooanthroponotic outbreaks among wildlife populations

Krishna N. Balasubramaniam,Nalina Aiempichitkijkarn,Stefano S. K. Kaburu,Pascal R. Marty,Brianne A. Beisner,Eliza Bliss-Moreau,Malgorzata E. Arlet,Edward Atwill,Brenda McCowan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-15713-6

IF: 4.6

2022-07-09

Scientific Reports

Abstract:Pandemics caused by pathogens that originate in wildlife highlight the importance of understanding the behavioral ecology of disease outbreaks at human–wildlife interfaces. Specifically, the relative effects of human–wildlife and wildlife-wildlife interactions on disease outbreaks among wildlife populations in urban and peri-urban environments remain unclear. We used social network analysis and epidemiological Susceptible-Infected-Recovered models to simulate zooanthroponotic outbreaks, through wild animals' joint propensities to co-interact with humans, and their social grooming of conspecifics. On 10 groups of macaques ( Macaca spp.) in peri-urban environments in Asia, we collected behavioral data using event sampling of human–macaque interactions within the same time and space, and focal sampling of macaques' social interactions with conspecifics and overall anthropogenic exposure. Model-predicted outbreak sizes were related to structural features of macaques' networks. For all three species, and for both anthropogenic (co-interactions) and social (grooming) contexts, outbreak sizes were positively correlated to the network centrality of first-infected macaques. Across host species and contexts, the above effects were stronger through macaques' human co-interaction networks than through their grooming networks, particularly for rhesus and bonnet macaques. Long-tailed macaques appeared to show intraspecific variation in these effects. Our findings suggest that among wildlife in anthropogenically-impacted environments, the structure of their aggregations around anthropogenic factors makes them more vulnerable to zooanthroponotic outbreaks than their social structure. The global features of these networks that influence disease outbreaks, and their underlying socio-ecological covariates, need further investigation. Animals that consistently interact with both humans and their conspecifics are important targets for disease control.

multidisciplinary sciences
Disease Risk from Human–Environment Interactions: Environment and Development Economics for Joint Conservation-Health Policy

Heidi J. Albers,Katherine D. Lee,Jennifer R. Rushlow,Carlos Zambrana-Torrselio

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-020-00449-6

2020-07-09

Environmental and Resource Economics

Abstract:Abstract Emergence of COVID-19 joins a collection of evidence that local and global health are influenced by human interactions with the natural environment. Frameworks that simultaneously model decisions to interact with natural systems and environmental mechanisms of zoonotic disease spread allow for identification of policy levers to mitigate disease risk and promote conservation. Here, we highlight opportunities to broaden existing conservation economics frameworks that represent human behavior to include disease transmission in order to inform conservation-disease risk policy. Using examples from wildlife markets and forest extraction, we call for environment, resource, and development economists to develop and analyze empirically-grounded models of people’s decisions about interacting with the environment, with particular attention to LMIC settings and ecological-epidemiological risk factors. Integrating the decisions that drive human–environment interactions with ecological and epidemiological research in an interdisciplinary approach to understanding pathogen transmission will inform policy needed to improve both conservation and disease spread outcomes.

economics,environmental studies
Pandemics and the human-wildlife interface in Asia: land use change as a driver of zoonotic viral outbreaks

Jenny E Goldstein,Ibnu Budiman,Anna Canny,Deborah Dwipartidrisa

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac74d4

IF: 6.7

2022-06-01

Environmental Research Letters

Abstract:Abstract Pandemics have occurred with increasing frequency over the past century as global travel enables rapid cross-continental transmission of viral zoonoses such as coronaviruses and influenzas. Yet the prevalence of global pandemics is also attributable to an increase in the number of these infectious diseases originating in wildlife or domesticated animals in Asia that jump to human hosts. Through a review of scholarly literature, this article argues that three interrelated land use phenomena—biodiversity loss, urbanization, agricultural expansion and intensification—in southern China and Southeast Asia have enabled past viral zoonotic ‘spillover’ events from animals to humans and make future pandemics more likely. Furthermore, much recent scholarly literature on zoonotic disease adopts the One Health framework, which highlights interdependency between viruses, animals, ecosystems, and human health. As such, we review and critique the salience of the One Health framework for research on zoonotic disease in Asia. We suggest that to better understand land use changes enabling zoonotic disease emergence, future health-environment research could incorporate qualitative, cross-scalar political-economic and political ecological dynamics within which human-wildlife relations are embedded.

environmental sciences,meteorology & atmospheric sciences
Understanding the changing role of global public health in biodiversity conservation

Will Smith

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01576-0

IF: 6.94

2021-06-11

AMBIO

Abstract:Zoonotic disease emergence has become a core concern of biodiversity conservation amid the ongoing impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Major international conservation groups now comprehensively center larger human–nature imbalances not only as problems of global public health but as a core challenge of the conservation movement, alongside habitat destruction, biodiversity loss and climate change. There is, however, little consideration of how new biosecurity concerns might alter conservation practice with unexpected and potential harmful impacts on human communities, particularly in developing nations with significant human–wildlife interfaces. Reviewing emerging policy positions from key conservation organizations, this article argues that the proposed responses to the COVID-19 pandemic hold the potential to (a) amplify existing people-park conflicts, and (b) generate new tensions by integrating global systems of viral surveillance into biodiversity conservation. I conclude that the close integration of biosecurity concerns into conservation policies requires greater acknowledgment of the unique challenges for human communities.

environmental sciences,engineering, environmental
Drivers of host-pathogen community assemblies in European forests and urban green spaces

Vincent Sluydts,Marie Bouilloud,Maxime Galan,Hussein Alburkat,Anais Bordes,Vincent Bourret,Valeria Colombo,Luc DeBruyn,Lara Dutra,Jana Eccard,Jasmin Firozpoor,Romain Gallet,Maciej Grzybek,Heikki Henttonen,Jens Jacob,Andrew McManus,Tarja Sironen,Peter Stuart,Caroline Tatard,Benjamin Roche,Herwig Leirs,Nathalie Charbonnel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.09.19.613856

2024-09-22

Abstract:Major advances in the understanding of infectious diseases have been achieved in the last decades. However, the persistence and re-emergence of pathogens continue to raise public and veterinary health concerns, of which the recent COVID-19 pandemic may be one of the most dramatic examples. Understanding the impact of habitat alterations and concomitant biodiversity loss on pathogen transmission and emergence from wildlife remains challenging. Here, we aim to elucidate the interlinkages between biodiversity and rodent-borne diseases at local and European scales. We present recently collected host-pathogen data from 21 temperate forest sites and eight urban green spaces throughout five European countries, environments where rodents are abundant and human/domestic animals – wildlife interactions are likely to occur. 3766 specimens were analyzed during the period from 2020 to 2022 comprising 15 different small mammal species. Different organ tissues of each specimen were screened for bacteria by either 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing or specific PCR. The presence of antibodies to different families of viruses was screened using immunofluorescent assays. A multitude of pathogens of zoonotic potential from several genera including , Orthohantavirus and Orthopoxvirus were detected at non-negligible prevalence in 11 different terrestrial mammal species. A shift in host community composition was observed along the anthropization gradient with more urban adapters in more anthropized sites. Pathogen richness increased with an increase in host species diversity, following the “host-diversity begets parasite-diversity” hypothesis. The absence of some vector-transmitted parasites in urban areas suggests a shift in pathogen community along the anthropization gradient. Host species and host intrinsic factors were dominant explanatory variables for endoparasitic species and , while extrinsic environmental and climatic factors where influential in explaining variations in occurrences of several vector-transmitted pathogens. and were important connector host species in respectively urban green spaces and temperate forests. Increased host diversity, but not anthropization, correlated with a richer pathogen community. These results ultimately lead to an increased understanding of the complex host-pathogen system at the local landscape that can aid future management decisions and support the public health sector.

Ecology
Views from many worlds: unsettling categories in interdisciplinary research on endemic zoonotic diseases

Hayley MacGregor,Linda Waldman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2016.0170

2017-06-05

Abstract:Interdisciplinary research on zoonotic disease has tended to focus on ‘risk’ of disease transmission as a conceptual common denominator. With reference to endemic zoonoses at the livestock–human interface, we argue for considering a broader sweep of disciplinary insights from anthropology and other social sciences in interdisciplinary dialogue, in particular cross-cultural perspectives on human–animal engagement. We consider diverse worldviews where human–animal encounters are perceived of in terms of the kinds of social relations they generate, and the notion of culture is extended to the ‘natural’ world. This has implications for how animals are valued, treated and prioritized. Thinking differently with and about animals and about species' boundaries could enable ways of addressing zoonotic diseases which have closer integration with people's own cultural norms. If we can bring this kind of knowledge into One Health debates, we find ourselves with a multiplicity of worldviews, where bounded categories such as human:animal and nature:culture cannot be assumed. This might in turn influence our scientific ways of seeing our own disciplinary cultures, and generate novel ways of understanding zoonoses and constructing solutions. This article is part of the themed issue ‘One Health for a changing world: zoonoses, ecosystems and human well-being’.
An applied ecology of fear framework: linking theory to conservation practice

Kaitlyn M. Gaynor,Michael J. Cherry,Sophie L. Gilbert,Michel T. Kohl,Courtney L. Larson,Thomas M. Newsome,Laura R. Prugh,Justin P. Suraci,Julie K. Young,Justine A. Smith

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12629

2020-08-12

Animal Conservation

Abstract:<p>Research on the ecology of fear has highlighted the importance of perceived risk from predators and humans in shaping animal behavior and physiology, with potential demographic and ecosystem‐wide consequences. Despite recent conceptual advances and potential management implications of the ecology of fear, theory and conservation practices have rarely been linked. Many challenges in animal conservation may be alleviated by actively harnessing or compensating for risk perception and risk avoidance behavior in wild animal populations. Integration of the ecology of fear into conservation and management practice can contribute to the recovery of threatened populations, human–wildlife conflict mitigation, invasive species management, maintenance of sustainable harvest and species reintroduction plans. Here, we present an applied framework that links conservation interventions to desired outcomes by manipulating ecology of fear dynamics. We discuss how to reduce or amplify fear in wild animals by manipulating habitat structure, sensory stimuli, animal experience (previous exposure to risk) and food safety trade‐offs to achieve management objectives. Changing the optimal decision‐making of individuals in managed populations can then further conservation goals by shaping the spatiotemporal distribution of animals, changing predation rates and altering risk effects that scale up to demographic consequences. We also outline future directions for applied research on fear ecology that will better inform conservation practices. Our framework can help scientists and practitioners anticipate and mitigate unintended consequences of management decisions, and highlight new levers for multi‐species conservation strategies that promote human–wildlife coexistence.</p>

biodiversity conservation,ecology
Ecological countermeasures to prevent pathogen spillover and subsequent pandemics

Raina K. Plowright,Aliyu N. Ahmed,Tim Coulson,Thomas W. Crowther,Imran Ejotre,Christina L. Faust,Winifred F. Frick,Peter J. Hudson,Tigga Kingston,P. O. Nameer,M. Teague O’Mara,Alison J. Peel,Hugh Possingham,Orly Razgour,DeeAnn M. Reeder,Manuel Ruiz-Aravena,Nancy B. Simmons,Prashanth N. Srinivas,Gary M. Tabor,Iroro Tanshi,Ian G. Thompson,Abi T. Vanak,Neil M. Vora,Charley E. Willison,Annika T. H. Keeley,M. Teague O'Mara

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-46151-9

IF: 16.6

2024-03-27

Nature Communications

Abstract:Substantial global attention is focused on how to reduce the risk of future pandemics. Reducing this risk requires investment in prevention, preparedness, and response. Although preparedness and response have received significant focus, prevention, especially the prevention of zoonotic spillover, remains largely absent from global conversations. This oversight is due in part to the lack of a clear definition of prevention and lack of guidance on how to achieve it. To address this gap, we elucidate the mechanisms linking environmental change and zoonotic spillover using spillover of viruses from bats as a case study. We identify ecological interventions that can disrupt these spillover mechanisms and propose policy frameworks for their implementation. Recognizing that pandemics originate in ecological systems, we advocate for integrating ecological approaches alongside biomedical approaches in a comprehensive and balanced pandemic prevention strategy.

multidisciplinary sciences
Current understanding and knowledge gaps regarding wildlife as reservoirs of antimicrobial resistance

Neil Vezeau,Laura Kahn

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2460/ajvr.24.02.0040

2024-04-22

Abstract:Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a serious health issue shared across all One Health domains. Wildlife species represent a key intersection of the animal and environmental domains. They are a relevant but understudied reservoir and route of spread for AMR throughout the environment. Most wildlife AMR research thus far has focused on avian species, terrestrial mammals, and a selection of aquatic and marine species. Pathogens often identified in terrestrial wildlife include enteric zoonotic organisms such as Eschericia coli and Salmonella spp, in addition to nonenterics such as Staphylococci. Resistances have been commonly identified to antimicrobials important in veterinary and human medicine, including β-lactams, tetracyclines, aminoglycosides, and macrolides. Our emerging understanding of the dynamics of AMR distribution across life on Earth provides further opportunities for us to assess the risk it poses to veterinary and human health. Future work will require prioritizing which wildlife most exacerbates and indicates AMR in domestic animals. However, decreasing prices and increasing ease for metagenomic sequencing allows for synergies with expanding wildlife viral disease surveillance. Improved understanding of how wildlife impacts veterinary and human healthcare may increase opportunities for related research funding and global equity in such research. The companion Currents in One Health article by Vezeau and Kahn, JAVMA, June 2024, addresses in further detail the routes of spread of AMR across different animal populations and actions that can be taken to mitigate AMR with special consideration for wildlife sources.
Impacts of biodiversity and biodiversity loss on zoonotic diseases

Felicia Keesing,Richard S. Ostfeld

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2023540118

IF: 11.1

2021-04-05

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract:Zoonotic diseases are infectious diseases of humans caused by pathogens that are shared between humans and other vertebrate animals. Previously, pristine natural areas with high biodiversity were seen as likely sources of new zoonotic pathogens, suggesting that biodiversity could have negative impacts on human health. At the same time, biodiversity has been recognized as potentially benefiting human health by reducing the transmission of some pathogens that have already established themselves in human populations. These apparently opposing effects of biodiversity in human health may now be reconcilable. Recent research demonstrates that some taxa are much more likely to be zoonotic hosts than others are, and that these animals often proliferate in human-dominated landscapes, increasing the likelihood of spillover. In less-disturbed areas, however, these zoonotic reservoir hosts are less abundant and nonreservoirs predominate. Thus, biodiversity loss appears to increase the risk of human exposure to both new and established zoonotic pathogens. This new synthesis of the effects of biodiversity on zoonotic diseases presents an opportunity to articulate the next generation of research questions that can inform management and policy. Future studies should focus on collecting and analyzing data on the diversity, abundance, and capacity to transmit of the taxa that actually share zoonotic pathogens with us. To predict and prevent future epidemics, researchers should also focus on how these metrics change in response to human impacts on the environment, and how human behaviors can mitigate these effects. Restoration of biodiversity is an important frontier in the management of zoonotic disease risk.

multidisciplinary sciences
Biodiversity loss, emerging pathogens and human health risks

Dirk S. Schmeller,Franck Courchamp,Gerry Killeen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-020-02021-6

IF: 3.4

2020-08-13

Biodiversity and Conservation

Abstract:Outbreaks of emerging infectious diseases are occurring with increasing frequency and consequences, including wildlife diseases and zoonoses. Those have potentially long-lasting effects on human and wildlife populations, with inevitable direct and indirect effects on ecosystems. The intensifying emergence of infectious pathogens has many underlying reasons, all driven by the growing anthropogenic impact on nature. Intensifying pathogen emergence can be attributed to climate change, biodiversity loss, habitat degradation, and an increasing rate of wildlife–human contacts. All of these are caused by synergies between persisting intense poverty and a growing human population. Improved global management of the human-driven biological degradation and international dispersal processes that exacerbate those pandemic threats are now long overdue. It is vital that we act decisively in the aftermath of the COVID-19 crisis to radically change how we collectively manage the planet as a whole.

environmental sciences,biodiversity conservation,ecology
Mammal Assemblage Composition Predicts Global Patterns In Emerging Infectious Disease Risk

Yingying X G Wang,Kevin D Matson,Luca Santini,Piero Visconti,Jelle P Hilbers,Mark A J Huijbregts,Yanjie Xu,Herbert H T Prins,Toph Allen,Zheng Y X Huang,Willem F de Boer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15784

IF: 11.6

2021-01-01

Global Change Biology

Abstract:As a source of emerging infectious diseases, wildlife assemblages (and related spatial patterns) must be quantitatively assessed to help identify high-risk locations. Previous assessments have largely focussed on the distributions of individual species; however, transmission dynamics are expected to depend on assemblage composition. Moreover, disease-diversity relationships have mainly been studied in the context of species loss, but assemblage composition and disease risk (e.g. infection prevalence in wildlife assemblages) can change without extinction. Based on the predicted distributions and abundances of 4466 mammal species, we estimated global patterns of disease risk through the calculation of the community-level basic reproductive ratio R0, an index of invasion potential, persistence, and maximum prevalence of a pathogen in a wildlife assemblage. For density-dependent diseases, we found that, in addition to tropical areas which are commonly viewed as infectious disease hotspots, northern temperate latitudes included high-risk areas. We also forecasted the effects of climate change and habitat loss from 2015 to 2035. Over this period, many local assemblages showed no net loss of species richness, but the assemblage composition (i.e. the mix of species and their abundances) changed considerably. Simultaneously, most areas experienced a decreased risk of density-dependent diseases but an increased risk of frequency-dependent diseases. We further explored the factors driving these changes in disease risk. Our results suggest that biodiversity and changes therein jointly influence disease risk. Understanding these changes and their drivers and ultimately identifying emerging infectious disease hotspots can help health officials prioritize resource distribution.
How studies on zoonotic risks in wildlife implement the one health approach – A systematic review

Caroline Kuhn,Kenneth Mawuta Hayibor,Ama Twumwaa Acheampong,Luciana Salini Abrahão Pires,Magda Clara Vieira Costa-Ribeiro,María Soledad Burrone,Carlos Roberto Vásquez-Almazán,Katja Radon,María Teresa Solis Soto,Abrahão Pires Luciana Salini,Adler Marcia,Burrone María Soledad,da Costa Ribeiro Magda Clara Vieira,de Almeida Gustavo Araújo,de Carvalho Denise Siqueira,de Tarso Pires Paulo,Encina Zamorra Veronica,Garrido Marie Astrid,Guzmán-Quilo Maria Carolina,Kuhn Caroline,Magalhães Buffon Marilene da Cruz,Mansilla Vivar Pilar Macarena,Mendez Heredia Dennis Martin,Perez Morales Fabiana Marcela,Pinto Navia Carlos Fernando,Radon Katja,Ribeiro de Almeida Tatjana Queiroz,Solis Soto María Teresa,Vásquez-Almazán Carlos Roberto

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.onehlt.2024.100929

IF: 9

2024-11-11

One Health

Abstract:Background The recent COVID-19 pandemic and the emergence of infectious diseases at the human-animal interface highlight the global challenge of mitigating zoonotic risks. The One Health approach emphasizes the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health, urging for holistic and interdisciplinary strategies in disease prevention. Despite growing interest, the attention to wildlife in pandemic prevention remains limited. This systematic literature review aims to evaluate recent One Health research on zoonotic diseases and wildlife in terms of study design, interdisciplinary collaboration, and participatory approaches. Key questions addressed include the consideration of One Health domains, disciplinary involvement, and the inclusion of non-academic stakeholders. Methods Following PRISMA guidelines, PubMed and Web of Science were searched for primary research papers on zoonotic diseases and wildlife from 2018 to 2023. Eligibility criteria included a focus on wildlife, zoonotic diseases, and adoption of the One Health approach. Results A total of 228 primary research papers were retrieved. Out of these, 105 studies were included in the review. Few studies integrated human, animal, and environmental domains simultaneously in data collection (4.8 %) and knowledge generation (29.5 %). While extensive knowledge was generated for animal health (97.1 %) and human health (84.8 %), environmental health (34.3 %) remained underrepresented. Laboratory methods predominated (82.9 %), with limited integration of social science methodologies (19 %). The majority were epidemiological studies (86.7 %), yet analytical design within these was sparse (17.1 %). Participation of non-academic stakeholders was limited (36.2 % included non-academics; 3.8 % encompassed participative approaches). Conclusions The synthesis of the domains human, animal and environmental health remained fragmentary in the studies reviewed. Environmental health is underrepresented and the interdisciplinary involvement of social sciences lacks. Neglecting these fields of competence impedes comprehensive understanding of disease dynamics and hampers effective zoonosis prevention strategies. In result, greater inter- and transdisciplinary collaboration, along with participatory approaches, are still needed for advancing One Health research.

infectious diseases,public, environmental & occupational health

Assessing the risk of human‐to‐wildlife pathogen transmission for conservation and public health

The Ecology of Pathogen Spillover and Disease Emergence at the Human-Wildlife-Environment Interface

Implications of Zoonoses From Hunting and Use of Wildlife in North American Arctic and Boreal Biomes: Pandemic Potential, Monitoring, and Mitigation

One Health, emerging infectious diseases and wildlife: two decades of progress?

Population and community consequences of perceived risk from humans in wildlife

The influence of social and spatial processes on the epidemiology of environmentally transmitted pathogens in wildlife: implications for management

Post COVID-19: a solution scan of options for preventing future zoonotic epidemics

Risk of human‐to‐wildlife transmission of SARS‐CoV‐2

Impact of joint interactions with humans and social interactions with conspecifics on the risk of zooanthroponotic outbreaks among wildlife populations

Disease Risk from Human–Environment Interactions: Environment and Development Economics for Joint Conservation-Health Policy

Pandemics and the human-wildlife interface in Asia: land use change as a driver of zoonotic viral outbreaks

Understanding the changing role of global public health in biodiversity conservation

Drivers of host-pathogen community assemblies in European forests and urban green spaces

Views from many worlds: unsettling categories in interdisciplinary research on endemic zoonotic diseases

An applied ecology of fear framework: linking theory to conservation practice

Ecological countermeasures to prevent pathogen spillover and subsequent pandemics

Current understanding and knowledge gaps regarding wildlife as reservoirs of antimicrobial resistance

Impacts of biodiversity and biodiversity loss on zoonotic diseases

Biodiversity loss, emerging pathogens and human health risks

Mammal Assemblage Composition Predicts Global Patterns In Emerging Infectious Disease Risk

How studies on zoonotic risks in wildlife implement the one health approach – A systematic review