Tools and techniques for disease risk assessment in threatened wildlife conservation programmes

Population structure, intergroup interaction, and human contact govern infectious disease impacts in mountain gorilla populations

Infectious zoonotic diseases are a threat to wildlife conservation and global health. They are especially a concern for wild apes, which are vulnerable to many human infectious diseases. As ecotourism, deforestation, and great ape field research increase, the threat of human-sourced infections to wild populations becomes more substantial and could result in devastating population declines. The endangered mountain gorillas (Gorilla beringei beringei) of the Virunga Massif in east-central Africa suffer periodic disease outbreaks and are exposed to infections from human-sourced pathogens. It is important to understand the possible risks of disease introduction and spread in this population and how human contact may facilitate disease transmission. Here we present and evaluate an individual-based, stochastic, discrete-time disease transmission model to predict epidemic outcomes and better understand health risks to the Virunga mountain gorilla population. To model disease transmission we have derived estimates for gorilla contact, interaction, and migration rates. The model shows that the social structure of gorilla populations plays a profound role in governing disease impacts with subdivided populations experiencing less than 25% of the outbreak levels of a single homogeneous population. It predicts that gorilla group dispersal and limited group interactions are strong factors in preventing widespread population-level outbreaks of infectious disease after such diseases have been introduced into the population. However, even a moderate amount of human contact increases disease spread and can lead to population-level outbreaks.

Risks from disease caused by Mycobacterium orygis as a consequence of Greater one-horned Rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis) translocation in Nepal

The greater one-horned rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis) is listed as vulnerable by the IUCN Red List. Mycobacterium orygis-associated disease was identified in a single greater one-horned rhino in Chitwan National Park in February 2015 prior to a planned translocation of five greater one-horned rhinoceros from Chitwan National Park to Bardia National Park for conservation purposes. This paper describes a qualitative disease risk analysis conducted retrospectively post-translocation for Mycobacterium orygis and this translocation, with the aim to improve the understanding of disease threats to the conservation of greater one-horned rhino. The disease risk analysis method used was devised by Sainsbury & Vaughan-Higgins (Conservation Biology, 26, 2017, 442) with modifications by Bobadilla Suarez et al (EcoHealth, 14, 2017, 1) and Rideout et al (EcoHealth, 14, 2017, 42) and included the use of a scenario tree and an analysis of uncertainty as recommended by Murray et al. (Handbook on import risk analysis for animals and animal products. Volume 1. Introduction and qualitative risk analysis, 2004), and the first time this combination of methods has been used to assess the risk from disease in a conservation translocation. The scenario tree and analysis of uncertainty increased the clarity and transparency of the analysis. Rideout et al.'s (EcoHealth, 14, 2017, 42) criteria were used to assess the source hazard and may be useful in comparative assessment of source hazards for future conservation translocations. The likelihood of release into the destination site of Mycobacterium orygis as a source hazard was estimated as of low risk, the risk of exposure of populations at the destination was of high risk and the likelihood of biological and environmental consequences was low. Overall, the risk from disease associated with Mycobacterium orygis as a result of this translocation was found to be low. Recommendations on disease risk management strategies could be improved with a better understanding of the epidemiology including the presence/absence of Mycobacterium orygis in greater one-horned rhino to develop effective disease risk management strategies.

Assessing Animal Welfare in Animal-Visitor Interactions in Zoos and Other Facilities. A Pilot Study Involving Giraffes

In recent years, awareness of the controversial aspects connected with wild animal-visitor interactions (AVIs) in zoos and other facilities has increased due to cultural changes. Therefore, the need to apply transparent procedures to evaluate AVIs programs in zoos and similar facilities has also increased. This study presents results of animal welfare's assessment of a pilot test of a protocol based on six steps that aim to explore and assess the overall value of AVIs considering the impact both on animals and visitors. In the present paper, we discuss the multifaceted approach to animal welfare assessment during animal-visitor interactions, combining quantitative behavioural observations/analysis and a welfare risk-assessment procedure, which forms the basis of the six-step protocol. Pilot testing of said approach to animal welfare assessment involved giraffes (Giraffa camelopardalis) in an Italian zoo. No change in behaviour, suggestive of an increased welfare risk to the animals, was found. The risk analysis reported overall low risks for welfare, whereas enclosure analysis highlighted that the enclosure was suitable for allowing interactions without jeopardising animal welfare, mainly because it allowed animals to choose whether to interact or withdraw from interactions without decreasing the space available to them.

Using Qualitative Disease Risk Analysis for Herpetofauna Conservation Translocations Transgressing Ecological and Geographical Barriers

Through the exploration of disease risk analysis methods employed for four different UK herpetofauna translocations, we illustrate how disease hazards can be identified, and how the risk of disease can be analysed. Where ecological or geographical barriers between source and destination sites exist, parasite populations are likely to differ in identity or strain between the two sites, elevating the risk from disease and increasing the number and category of hazards requiring analysis. Simplification of the translocation pathway through the avoidance of these barriers reduces the risk from disease. The disease risk analysis tool is intended to aid conservation practitioners in decision making relating to disease hazards prior to implementation of a translocation.

A Comparison of Disease Risk Analysis Tools for Conservation Translocations

Conservation translocations are increasingly used to manage threatened species and restore ecosystems. Translocations increase the risk of disease outbreaks in the translocated and recipient populations. Qualitative disease risk analyses have been used as a means of assessing the magnitude of any effect of disease and the probability of the disease occurring associated with a translocation. Currently multiple alternative qualitative disease risk analysis packages are available to practitioners. Here we compare the ease of use, expertise required, transparency, and results from, three different qualitative disease risk analyses using a translocation of the endangered New Zealand passerine, the hihi (Notiomystis cincta), as a model. We show that the three methods use fundamentally different approaches to define hazards. Different methods are used to produce estimations of the risk from disease, and the estimations are different for the same hazards. Transparency of the process varies between methods from no referencing, or explanations of evidence to justify decisions, through to full documentation of resources, decisions and assumptions made. Evidence to support decisions on estimation of risk from disease is important, to enable knowledge acquired in the future, for example, from translocation outcome, to be used to improve the risk estimation for future translocations. Information documenting each disease risk analysis differs along with variation in emphasis of the questions asked within each package. The expertise required to commence a disease risk analysis varies and an action flow chart tailored for the non-wildlife health specialist are included in one method but completion of the disease risk analysis requires wildlife health specialists with epidemiological and pathological knowledge in all three methods. We show that disease risk analysis package choice may play a greater role in the overall risk estimation of the effect of disease on animal populations involved in a translocation than might previously have been realised.

Disease Risk Analysis and Post-Release Health Surveillance for a Reintroduction Programme: the Pool Frog Pelophylax lessonae

There are risks from disease in undertaking wild animal reintroduction programmes. Methods of disease risk analysis have been advocated to assess and mitigate these risks, and post-release health and disease surveillance can be used to assess the effectiveness of the disease risk analysis, but results for a reintroduction programme have not to date been recorded. We carried out a disease risk analysis for the reintroduction of pool frogs (Pelophylax lessonae) to England, using information gained from the literature and from diagnostic testing of Swedish pool frogs and native amphibians. Ranavirus and Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis were considered high-risk disease threats for pool frogs at the destination site. Quarantine was used to manage risks from disease due to these two agents at the reintroduction site: the quarantine barrier surrounded the reintroduced pool frogs. Post-release health surveillance was carried out through regular health examinations of amphibians in the field at the reintroduction site and collection and examination of dead amphibians. No significant health or disease problems were detected, but the detection rate of dead amphibians was very low. Methods to detect a higher proportion of dead reintroduced animals and closely related species are required to better assess the effects of reintroduction on health and disease.

Integrating evolution in the management of captive zoo populations

Both natural animal populations and those in captivity are subject to evolutionary forces. Evolutionary changes to captive populations may be an important, but poorly understood, factor that can affect the sustainability of these populations. The importance of maintaining the evolutionary integrity of zoo populations, especially those that are used for conservation efforts including reintroductions, is critical for the conservation of biodiversity. Here, we propose that a greater appreciation for an evolutionary perspective may offer important insights that can enhance the reproductive success and health for the sustainability of captive populations. We provide four examples and associated strategies that highlight this approach, including minimizing domestication (i.e., genetic adaptation to captivity), integrating natural mating systems into captive breeding protocols, minimizing the effects of translocation on variation in photoperiodism, and understanding the interplay of parasites/pathogens and inflammation. There are a myriad of other issues that may be important for captive populations, and we conclude that these may often be species specific. Nonetheless, an evolutionary perspective may mitigate some of the challenges currently facing captive populations that are important from a conservation perspective, including their sustainability.

Wildlife disease and risk perception

Risk perception has an important influence on wildlife management and is particularly relevant to issues that present health risks, such as those associated with wildlife disease management. Knowledge of risk perceptions is useful to wildlife health professionals in developing communication messages that enhance public understanding of wildlife disease risks and that aim to increase public support for disease management. To promote knowledge of public understanding of disease risks in the context of wildlife disease management, we used a self-administered questionnaire mailed to a stratified random sample (n = 901) across the continental United States to accomplish three objectives: 1) assess zoonotic disease risk perceptions; 2) identify sociodemographic and social psychologic factors underlying these risk perceptions; and 3) examine the relationship between risk perception and agreement with wildlife disease management practices. Diseases we assessed in the surveys were rabies, plague, and West Nile virus. Risk perception, as measured by an index consisting of severity, susceptibility, and dread, was greatest for rabies and West Nile virus disease (x = 2.62 and 2.59, respectively, on a scale of 1 to 4 and least for plague (x = 2.39). The four most important variables associated with disease risk perception were gender, education, prior exposure to the disease, and concern for health effects. We found that stronger risk perception was associated with greater agreement with wildlife disease management. We found particular concern for the vulnerability of wildlife to zoonotic disease and for protection of wildlife health, indicating that stakeholders may be receptive to messages emphasizing the potential harm to wildlife from disease and to messages promoting One Health (i.e., those that emphasize the interdependence of human, domestic animal, wildlife, and ecosystem health).

Analyzing disease risks associated with translocations

Translocations of species are expected to be used increasingly to counter the undesirable effects of anthropogenic changes to ecosystems, including loss of species. Methods to assess the risk of disease associated with translocations have been compiled in a comprehensive manual of disease-risk analysis for movement of domestic animals. We used this manual to devise a qualitative method for assessing the probability of the occurrence of disease in wild animals associated with translocations. We adapted the method such that we considered a parasite (any agent of infectious or noninfectious disease) a hazard if it or the host had crossed an ecological or geographical barrier and was novel to the host. We included in our analyses hazards present throughout the translocation pathway derived from the interactions between host immunity and the parasite, the effect of parasites on populations, the effect of noninfectious disease agents, and the effect of stressors on host-parasite interactions. We used the reintroduction of Eurasian Cranes (Grus grus) to England to demonstrate our method. Of the 24 hazards identified, 1 was classified as high risk (coccidia) and 5 were medium risk (highly pathogenic avian influenza virus, Mycobacterium avium, Aspergillus fumigatus, tracheal worms [Syngamus sp. and Cyathostoma sp.], and Tetrameres spp.). Seventeen other hazards were considered low or very low risk. In the absence of better information on the number, identity, distribution, and pathogenicity of parasites of wild animals, there is uncertainty in the risk of disease to translocated animals and recipient populations. Surveys of parasites in source and destination populations and detailed health monitoring after release will improve the information available for future analyses of disease risk. We believe our method can be adapted to assess the risks of disease in other translocated populations.

Parasite management in translocations: lessons from a threatened New Zealand bird

Awareness of parasite risks in translocations has prompted the development of parasite management protocols, including parasite risk assessment, parasite screening and treatments. However, although the importance of such measures seems obvious it is difficult to know whether the measures taken are effective, especially when working with wild populations. We review current methods in one extensively researched case study, the endemic New Zealand passerine bird, the hihi Notiomystis cincta. Our review is structured around four of the 10 questions proposed by Armstrong & Seddon (Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 2008: 23, 20–25) for reintroduction biology. These four questions can be related directly to parasites and parasite management and we recommend using this framework to help select and justify parasite management. Our retrospective study of recent disease and health screening in hihi reveals only partial overlap with these questions. Current practice does not focus on, or aim to reduce, the uncertainty in most steps of the risk assessment process or on evaluating whether the measures are effective. We encourage targeted parasite management that builds more clearly on available disease risk assessment methodologies and integrates these tools within a complete reintroduction plan.