Search for: All records

Abstract Infectious diseases are a major threat for biodiversity conservation and can exert strong influence on wildlife population dynamics. Understanding the mechanisms driving infection rates and epidemic outcomes requires empirical data on the evolutionary trajectory of pathogens and host selective processes. Phylodynamics is a robust framework to understand the interaction of pathogen evolutionary processes with epidemiological dynamics, providing a powerful tool to evaluate disease control strategies. Tasmanian devils have been threatened by a fatal transmissible cancer, devil facial tumour disease (DFTD), for more than two decades. Here we employ a phylodynamic approach using tumour mitochondrial genomes to assess the role of tumour genetic diversity in epidemiological and population dynamics in a devil population subject to 12 years of intensive monitoring, since the beginning of the epidemic outbreak. DFTD molecular clock estimates of disease introduction mirrored observed estimates in the field, and DFTD genetic diversity was positively correlated with estimates of devil population size. However, prevalence and force of infection were the lowest when devil population size and tumour genetic diversity was the highest. This could be due to either differential virulence or transmissibility in tumour lineages or the development of host defence strategies against infection. Our results support the view that evolutionary processes and epidemiological trade‐offs can drive host‐pathogen coexistence, even when disease‐induced mortality is extremely high. We highlight the importance of integrating pathogen and population evolutionary interactions to better understand long‐term epidemic dynamics and evaluating disease control strategies. 

Abstract Contemporary wildlife disease management is complex because managers need to respond to a wide range of stakeholders, multiple uncertainties, and difficult trade‐offs that characterize the interconnected challenges of today. Despite general acknowledgment of these complexities, managing wildlife disease tends to be framed as a scientific problem, in which the major challenge is lack of knowledge. The complex and multifactorial process of decision‐making is collapsed into a scientific endeavor to reduce uncertainty. As a result, contemporary decision‐making may be oversimplified, rely on simple heuristics, and fail to account for the broader legal, social, and economic context in which the decisions are made. Concurrently, scientific research on wildlife disease may be distant from this decision context, resulting in information that may not be directly relevant to the pertinent management questions. We propose reframing wildlife disease management challenges as decision problems and addressing them with decision analytical tools to divide the complex problems into more cognitively manageable elements. In particular, structured decision‐making has the potential to improve the quality, rigor, and transparency of decisions about wildlife disease in a variety of systems. Examples of management of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, white‐nose syndrome, avian influenza, and chytridiomycosis illustrate the most common impediments to decision‐making, including competing objectives, risks, prediction uncertainty, and limited resources.