4.7 Article

Identifying Environmental Risk Factors for Louping Ill Virus Seroprevalence in Sheep and the Potential to Inform Wildlife Management Policy

期刊

FRONTIERS IN VETERINARY SCIENCE
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2020.00377

关键词

deer; ticks; GIS; habitat management; Ixodes ricinus; tick-borne disease

资金

  1. Scottish Government's Rural and Environmental Science and Analytical Services Division (RESAS) as part of the Scottish Government's Center of Expertise in Animal Disease Outbreaks (EPIC)
  2. RERAD flexible fund award [MRI/843/04]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Identifying the risk factors for disease is crucial for developing policy and strategies for controlling exposure to pathogens. However, this is often challenging, especially in complex disease systems, such as vector-borne diseases with multiple hosts and other environmental drivers. Here we combine seroprevalence data with GIS-based environmental variables to identify the environmental risk factors associated with an endemic tick-borne pathogen-louping ill virus-in sheep in Scotland. Higher seroprevalences were associated with (i) upland/moorland habitats, in accordance with what we predicted from the habitat preferences of alternative LIV transmission hosts (such as red grouse), (ii) areas of higher deer density, which supports predictions from previous theoretical models, since deer are the keyIxodes ricinustick reproduction host in this system, and (iii) a warmer climate, concurring with our current knowledge of how temperature affects tick activity and development rates. The implications for policy include adopting increased disease management and awareness in high risk habitats and in the presence of alternative LIV hosts (e.g., grouse) and tick hosts (especially deer). These results can also inform deer management policy, especially where there may be conflict between contrasting upland management objectives, for example, revenue from deer hunting vs. sheep farmers.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据