Wildlife disease prevalence in human-modified landscapes
Overview
Authors put forward a review paper that reflects on the current knowledge related to linking human-induced landscape change, wild life disease prevalence, and the resulting consequences of wildlife mortality and reduced fecundity. Specifically, this review paper seeks to answer two questions. First, is there a consistent relationship between human-modified landscapes and wildlife disease prevalence? Second, identifying where there are significant gaps in current knowledge. These points were addressed by assessing approximately 70 research papers, book chapters and conference proceedings. Of the selected 70, nineteen papers were selected for final analysis.
Human-modified landscapes and disease prevalence
Analysis suggests that prevalence in human modified landscapes is variable, with cases of disease prevalence both increasing and decreasing. Researchers report an increase in prevalence over 50% of the time. However, its worth reminding the reader of this study’s low sample size (19 cases). Furthermore, readers should also consider the point that study systems are also highly variable in terms of host species and habitat modification.
Landscape change and disease transmission
Researchers echo the thought that diseases in wildlife are unlikely to be predominantly density or frequent dependent transmitted. Given this point, researchers classified their review into three transmission categories (1) vector, (2) direct), and (3) sexual. Prevalence in vector transmitted systems were observed to be highly variable due primarily to individual effects, habitat dependency, and host specificity of vector. Directly transmitted diseases showed variability, but they also demonstrated a preference for increased prevalence. The observed increased in prevalence is thought to be due to increased contact rates with the loss of habitat. Lastly, this study found no case study that linked sexually transmitted disease and habitat modification.
Overview
Authors put forward a review paper that reflects on the current knowledge related to linking human-induced landscape change, wild life disease prevalence, and the resulting consequences of wildlife mortality and reduced fecundity. Specifically, this review paper seeks to answer two questions. First, is there a consistent relationship between human-modified landscapes and wildlife disease prevalence? Second, identifying where there are significant gaps in current knowledge. These points were addressed by assessing approximately 70 research papers, book chapters and conference proceedings. Of the selected 70, nineteen papers were selected for final analysis.
Human-modified landscapes and disease prevalence
Analysis suggests that prevalence in human modified landscapes is variable, with cases of disease prevalence both increasing and decreasing. Researchers report an increase in prevalence over 50% of the time. However, its worth reminding the reader of this study’s low sample size (19 cases). Furthermore, readers should also consider the point that study systems are also highly variable in terms of host species and habitat modification.
Landscape change and disease transmission
Researchers echo the thought that diseases in wildlife are unlikely to be predominantly density or frequent dependent transmitted. Given this point, researchers classified their review into three transmission categories (1) vector, (2) direct), and (3) sexual. Prevalence in vector transmitted systems were observed to be highly variable due primarily to individual effects, habitat dependency, and host specificity of vector. Directly transmitted diseases showed variability, but they also demonstrated a preference for increased prevalence. The observed increased in prevalence is thought to be due to increased contact rates with the loss of habitat. Lastly, this study found no case study that linked sexually transmitted disease and habitat modification.