USGS Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70168334

Monitoring for the management of disease risk in animal translocation programmes

James D. Nichols·Tuula E. Hollmen·J. Barry Grand
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Monitoring is best viewed as a component of some larger programme focused on science or conservation. The value of monitoring is determined by the extent to which it informs the parent process. Animal translocation programmes are typically designed to augment or establish viable animal populations without changing the local community in any detrimental way. Such programmes seek to minimize disease risk to local wild animals, to translocated animals, and in some cases to humans. Disease monitoring can inform translocation decisions by (1) providing information for state-dependent decisions, (2) assessing progress towards programme objectives, and (3) permitting learning in order to make better decisions in the future. Here we discuss specific decisions that can be informed by both pre-release and post-release disease monitoring programmes. We specify state variables and vital rates needed to inform these decisions. We then discuss monitoring data and analytic methods that can be used to estimate these state variables and vital rates. Our discussion is necessarily general, but hopefully provides a basis for tailoring disease monitoring approaches to specific translocation programmes.

Explore related subjects

EcoHealthArticle

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

James D. Nichols, Tuula E. Hollmen, J. Barry Grand. 2016-01-14. Monitoring for the management of disease risk in animal translocation programmes. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10393-015-1094-4

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2022

Potential effects of environmental conditions on prairie dog flea development and implications for sylvatic plague epizootics

Fleas are common ectoparasites of vertebrates worldwide and vectors of many pathogens causing disease, such as sylvatic plague in prairie dog colonies. Development of fleas is regulated by environmental conditions, especially temperature and relative humidity. Development rates are typically slower at low temperatures and faster at high temperatures, which are bounded by lower and upper thresholds where development is reduced. Prairie dogs and their associated fleas (mostly Oropsylla spp) live in burrows that moderate outside environmental conditions, remaining cooler in summer and warmer in winter. We found burrow microclimates were characterized by stable daily temperatures and high relative humidity, with temperatures increasing from spring through summer. We previously showed temperature increases corresponded with increasing off-host flea abundance. To evaluate how changes in temperature could affect future prairie dog flea development and abundance, we used development rates of O. montana (a species related to prairie dog fleas), determined how prairie dog burrow microclimates are affected by ambient weather, and combined these results to develop a predictive model. Our model predicts burrow temperatures and flea development rates will increase during the twenty-first century, potentially leading to higher flea abundance and an increased probability of plague epizootics if Y. pestis is present.

Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, South↗
USGS2022

Future directions to manage wildlife health in a changing climate

In September 2019 The Economist wrote an obituary to Okjökull, a glacier in western Iceland that was declared “dead” in 2014, a victim of climate change. Although a few wildlife species have already incurred such a fate (e.g., the Bramble Cay melomys [ Melomys rubicola ]) (Fulton 2017), many more are on the path to climate-driven extinction (Andermann et al. 2020; Ceballos et al. 2015; He et al. 2019; Roman-Palacios and Wiens 2020; Sanchez-Bayo and Wyckhuys 2019; WWF 2020).

EcoHealth↗
USGS2019

Response to “Prepublication communication of research results”: The need for a coordinated wildlife disease surveillance laboratory network

In “Prepublication Communication of Research Results”, Adams et al. ( 2018 ) outline the importance of timeliness in providing scientific results with consequential implications for wildlife management to responsible government agencies. The authors discuss various impediments to sharing of scientific results and provide well-reasoned arguments why scientists should not fear that sharing these results with wildlife management agencies will preclude their ability to subsequently publish this information in the peer-reviewed literature.

EcoHealth↗