Cirad-Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Epidemiol Infect. 2013 Jul;141(7):1522-35. doi: 10.1017/S0950268813000204. Epub 2013 Feb 26.
In southern African transfrontier conservation areas (TFCAs), people, livestock and wildlife share space and resources in semi-arid landscapes. One consequence of the coexistence of wild and domestic herbivores is the risk of pathogen transmission. This risk threatens local livelihoods relying on animal production, public health in the case of zoonoses, national economies in the context of transboundary animal diseases, and the success of integrated conservation and development initiatives. The level of interaction between sympatric wild and domestic hosts, defining different wildlife/livestock interfaces, characterizes opportunities of pathogen transmission between host populations. Exploring the relationship between infection burden and different types of wildlife/domestic interfaces is therefore necessary to manage the sanitary risk in animal populations through control options adapted to these multi-host systems. Here, we assessed the infection burdens of sympatric domestic cattle (Bos taurus/Bos indicus) and African buffalo (Syncerus caffer) at an unfenced interface and compared the infection burdens of cattle populations at different wildlife/livestock interfaces in the Great Limpopo TFCA. Patterns of infection in ungulate populations varied between wild and domestic hosts and between cattle populations at different wildlife/livestock interfaces. Foot-and-mouth disease, Rift Valley fever and theileriosis infections were detected in buffalo and cattle at unfenced interfaces; bovine tuberculosis was only present in buffalo; and brucellosis and lumpy skin disease only in cattle. At unfenced interfaces, cattle populations presented significantly higher Theileria parva and brucellosis prevalence. We hypothesize that cattle populations at wildlife/livestock interfaces face an increased risk of infection compared to those isolated from wildlife, and that the type of interface could influence the diversity and quantity of pathogens shared. Additional host behavioural and molecular epidemiological studies need to be conducted to support this hypothesis. If it is confirmed, the management of wildlife/livestock interfaces will need to be considered through the prism of livestock and public health.
在南部非洲跨界自然保护地（TFCAs），人类、牲畜和野生动物在半干旱景观中共享空间和资源。野生和家养食草动物共存的一个后果是病原体传播的风险。这种风险威胁到依赖动物生产的当地生计、人畜共患病情况下的公共卫生、跨境动物疾病背景下的国家经济，以及综合保护和发展举措的成功。共生的野生和家养宿主之间的相互作用水平，定义了不同的野生动物/牲畜界面，这些界面为宿主群体之间的病原体传播机会提供了特征。因此，通过针对这些多宿主系统的控制选项来管理动物种群的卫生风险，有必要探索感染负担与不同类型的野生动物/家畜界面之间的关系。在这里，我们评估了无围栏界面处共生的家养牛（Bos taurus/Bos indicus）和非洲水牛（Syncerus caffer）的感染负担，并比较了大林波波跨界自然保护地不同野生动物/牲畜界面处的牛群的感染负担。有蹄类动物种群的感染模式在野生和家养宿主之间以及不同野生动物/牲畜界面处的牛群之间有所不同。在无围栏界面处，水牛和牛中检测到了口蹄疫、裂谷热和泰勒虫病感染；牛型结核分枝杆菌仅存在于水牛中；而布鲁氏菌病和牛结节性皮肤病仅存在于牛中。在无围栏界面处，牛群中明显更高的小泰勒虫和布鲁氏菌病患病率。我们假设，与与野生动物隔离的牛群相比，处于野生动物/牲畜界面处的牛群面临更高的感染风险，并且界面的类型可能会影响共享的病原体的多样性和数量。需要进行额外的宿主行为和分子流行病学研究来支持这一假设。如果得到证实，就需要从牲畜和公共卫生的角度考虑野生动物/牲畜界面的管理。
