Analysis of a European general wildlife health surveillance program: Chances, challenges and recommendations

• Published in: PloS one 2024-05, Vol.19 (5), p.e0301438-e0301438
• Main Authors: Heiderich, Elisabeth, Keller, Saskia, Pewsner, Mirjam, Origgi, Francesco Carlo, Zürcher-Giovannini, Samoa, Borel, Stéphanie, Marti, Iris, Scherrer, Patrick, Pisano, Simone Roberto Rolando, Friker, Brian, Adrian-Kalchhauser, Irene, Ryser-Degiorgis, Marie-Pierre
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Animal diseases; Animals; Animals, Wild; Biodiversity; Biological monitoring; Biology and Life Sciences; Birds; Communicable diseases; Cultural heritage; Disease transmission; Domestic animals; Ecology and Environmental Sciences; Environmental research; Europe; Evaluation; Funding; Health aspects; Health surveillance; Humans; Hunting; Infectious diseases; Law; Livestock; Medical diagnosis; Medical research; Medicine and Health Sciences; Medicine, Experimental; Methods; One Health; Pathogens; Population density; Population growth; Population Surveillance - methods; Protected species; Public awareness; Reptiles & amphibians; Retrospective Studies; Veterinary medicine; Wildlife; Wildlife conservation; Wildlife management; Zoonoses
• ISSN: 1932-6203; 1932-6203
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0301438

In a One Health perspective general wildlife health surveillance (GWHS) gains importance worldwide, as pathogen transmission among wildlife, domestic animals and humans raises health, conservation and economic concerns. However, GWHS programs operate in the face of legal, geographical, financial, or administrative challenges. The present study uses a multi-tiered approach to understand the current characteristics, strengths and gaps of a European GWHS that operates in a fragmented legislative and multi-stakeholder environment. The aim is to support the implementation or improvement of other GWHS systems by managers, surveillance experts, and administrations. To assess the current state of wildlife health investigations and trends within the GWHS, we retrospectively analyzed 20 years of wildlife diagnostic data to explore alterations in annual case numbers, diagnosed diseases, and submitter types, conducted an online survey and phone interviews with official field partners (hunting administrators, game wardens and hunters) to assess their case submission criteria as well as their needs for post-mortem investigations, and performed in-house time estimations of post-mortem investigations to conduct a time-per-task analysis. Firstly, we found that infectious disease dynamics, the level of public awareness for specific diseases, research activities and increasing population sizes of in depth-monitored protected species, together with biogeographical and political boundaries all impacted case numbers and can present unexpected challenges to a GWHS. Secondly, we found that even a seemingly comprehensive GWHS can feature pronounced information gaps, with underrepresentation of common or easily recognizable diseases, blind spots in non-hunted species and only a fraction of discovered carcasses being submitted. Thirdly, we found that substantial amounts of wildlife health data may be available at local hunting administrations or disease specialist centers, but outside the reach of the GWHS and its processes. In conclusion, we recommend that fragmented and federalist GWHS programs like the one addressed require a central, consistent and accessible collection of wildlife health data. Also, considering the growing role of citizen observers in environmental research, we recommend using online reporting systems to harness decentrally available information and fill wildlife health information gaps.