Search for: All records

Abstract Human–wildlife interactions, including human–wildlife conflict, are increasingly common as expanding urbanization worldwide creates more opportunities for people to encounter wildlife. Wildlife–vehicle collisions, zoonotic disease transmission, property damage, and physical attacks to people or their pets have negative consequences for both people and wildlife, underscoring the need for comprehensive strategies that mitigate and prevent conflict altogether. Management techniques often aim to deter, relocate, or remove individual organisms, all of which may present a significant selective force in both urban and nonurban systems. Management‐induced selection may significantly affect the adaptive or nonadaptive evolutionary processes of urban populations, yet few studies explicate the links among conflict, wildlife management, and urban evolution. Moreover, the intensity of conflict management can vary considerably by taxon, public perception, policy, religious and cultural beliefs, and geographic region, which underscores the complexity of developing flexible tools to reduce conflict. Here, we present a cross‐disciplinary perspective that integrates human–wildlife conflict, wildlife management, and urban evolution to address how social–ecological processes drive wildlife adaptation in cities. We emphasize that variance in implemented management actions shapes the strength and rate of phenotypic and evolutionary change. We also consider how specific management strategies either promote genetic or plastic changes, and how leveraging those biological inferences could help optimize management actions while minimizing conflict. Investigating human–wildlife conflict as an evolutionary phenomenon may provide insights into how conflict arises and how management plays a critical role in shaping urban wildlife phenotypes. 

We are facing interwoven global threats to public health and ecosystem function that reveal the intrinsic connections between human and wildlife health. These challenges are especially pressing in cities, where social-ecological interactions are pronounced. The One Health concept provides an organizing framework that promotes the health and well-being of urban communities and ecosystems. However, for One Health to be successful, it must incorporate societal inequities in environmental disamenities, exposures, and policy. Such inequities affect all One Health interfaces, including the distribution of ecosystem services and disservices, the nature and frequency ofhuman–wildlife interactions, and legacies of land use. Here, we review the current literature on One Health perspectives, pinpoint areas in which to incorporate an environmental justice lens, and close with recommendations for future work. Intensifying social, political, and environmental unrest underscores a dire need for One Health solutions informed by environmental justice principles to help build healthier, more resilient cities. 

Reduced human activity to mitigate the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic was accompanied by reports of unusual wildlife sightings in highly developed areas. Such experiences with urban nature may have helped residents cope with the stress of the pandemic and increased public interest in urban wildlife; however, this may depend on the species residents encountered. In this study, we surveyed Chicago, Illinois, USA residents during a stay-at-home order to understand if residents in more affluent or greener neighborhoods saw more wildlife species. We also evaluated whether encounters with pest and non-pest species were associated with residents’ values about wildlife. Of 593 responses included in our analyses, respondents in higher-income and greener neighborhoods were more likely to perceive increased wildlife sightings and respondents in higher-income areas reported observing a higher number common birds and mammals. Support for seeing wildlife in residential areas was associated with seeing passerine birds and not seeing rats during the stay-at-home order. Our results suggest that perceived increases in wildlife sightings were common during a stay-at-home order, especially for affluent residents, and that residents’ perceptions depended on the species encountered. Understanding how changes in human behavior modifies human-wildlife interactions can help mitigate human-wildlife conflict and foster positive engagement with local wildlife. 

Abstract Background Encounters with rats in urban areas increase risk of human exposure to rat-associated zoonotic pathogens and act as a stressor associated with psychological distress. The frequency and nature of human-rat encounters may be altered by social distancing policies to mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, restaurant closures may reduce food availability for rats and promote rat activity in nearby residential areas, thus increasing public health risks during a period of public health crisis. In this study, we aimed to identify factors associated with increased perceived exposure to rats during a stay-at-home order, describe residents’ encounters with rats relevant to their health and well-being, and identify factors associated with increased use of rodent control. Methods Urban residents in Chicago, a large city with growing concerns about rats and health disparities, completed an online questionnaire including fixed response and open-ended questions during the spring 2020 stay-at-home order. Analyses included ordinal multivariate regression, spatial analysis, and thematic analysis for open-ended responses. Results Overall, 21% of respondents ( n  = 835) reported an increase in rat sightings around their homes during the stay-at-home order and increased rat sightings was positively associated with proximity to restaurants, low-rise apartment buildings, and rat feces in the home ( p  ≤ 0.01). Many respondents described feeling unsafe using their patio or yard, and afraid of rats entering their home or spreading disease. Greater engagement with rodent control was associated with property ownership, information about rat control, and areas with lower incomes ( p  ≤ 0.01). Conclusions More frequent rat encounters may be an unanticipated public health concern during periods of social distancing, especially in restaurant-dense areas or in low-rise apartment buildings. Rat presence may also limit residents’ ability to enjoy nearby outdoor spaces, which otherwise might buffer stress experienced during a stay-at-home order. Proactive rat control may be needed to mitigate rat-associated health risks during future stay-at-home orders. 

The co-existence of rats and humans in urban environments has long been a cause for concern regarding human health because of the potential for rats to harbor and transmit disease-causing pathogens. Here, we analyze whole-genome sequence (WGS) data from 41 Escherichia coli isolates collected from rat feces from 12 locations within the city of Chicago, IL, United States to determine the potential for rats to serve as a reservoir for pathogenic E. coli and describe its population structure. We identified 25 different serotypes, none of which were isolated from strains containing significant virulence markers indicating the presence of Shiga toxin-producing and other disease-causing E . coli . Nor did the E. coli isolates harbor any particularly rare stress tolerant or antimicrobial resistance genes. We then compared the isolates against a public database of approximately 100,000 E. coli and Shigella isolates of primarily food, food facility, or clinical origin. We found that only one isolate was genetically similar to genome sequences in the database. Phylogenetic analyses showed that isolates cluster by serotype, and there was little geographic structure (e.g., isolation by distance) among isolates. However, a greater signal of isolation by distance was observed when we compared genetic and geographic distances among isolates of the same serotype. This suggests that E. coli serotypes are independent lineages and recombination between serotypes is rare. 

Anticoagulant rodenticides (ARs) deployed to control rodent pest populations can increase the risk of pathogen infection for some wildlife. However, it is unknown whether ARs also increase infection risk for target rodents, which are common hosts for zoonotic (animal-to-human transmitted) pathogens. In this study, we tested whether rats exposed to ARs were more likely to be infected with zoonotic pathogens, specifically Leptospira spp. or Escherichia coli , after controlling for known predictors of infection (i.e. sex, age, body condition). We collected biological samples from 99 rats trapped in Chicago alleys and tested these for Leptospira infection, E. coli shedding and AR exposure. We found that rats that had been exposed to ARs and survived until the time of trapping, as well as older rats, were significantly more likely to be infected with Leptospira spp. than other rats. We found no significant association between E. coli shedding and any predictors. Our results show that human actions to manage rats can affect rat disease ecology and public health risks in unintended ways, and more broadly, contribute to a growing awareness of bidirectional relationships between humans and natural systems in cities. 

Abstract Urban rats are widely distributed pests that have negative effects on public health and property. It is crucial to understand their distribution to inform control efforts and address drivers of rat presence. Analysing public rat complaints can help assess urban rat distribution and identify factors supporting rat populations. Both social and environmental factors could promote rat complaints and must be integrated to understand rat distributions. We analysed rat complaints made between 2011 and 2017 in Chicago, a city with growing rat problems and stark wealth inequality. We examined whether rat complaints at the census tract level are associated with factors that could influence rat abundance, rats’ visibility to humans, and the likelihood of people making a complaint. Complaints were significantly positively correlated with anthropogenic factors hypothesized to promote rat abundance (restaurants, older buildings, garbage complaints, and dog waste complaints) or rat visibility (building construction/demolition activity), and factors hypothesized to increase the likelihood of complaining (human population density, more owner-occupied homes); we also found that complaints were highest in the summer. Our results suggest that conflicts between residents and rats are mainly driven by seasonal variation in rat abundance and human activity and could be mitigated with strategies such as securing food waste from residential and commercial sources. Accounting for social factors such as population density, construction and demolition activity, and home ownership versus rental can also help cities more accurately predict blocks at higher risk of rat conflicts.