Wildlife health perceptions and monitoring practices in globally distributed protected areas.

IF 5.2 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
Diego Montecino-Latorre, Mathieu Pruvot, Sarah H Olson
{"title":"Wildlife health perceptions and monitoring practices in globally distributed protected areas.","authors":"Diego Montecino-Latorre, Mathieu Pruvot, Sarah H Olson","doi":"10.1111/cobi.70076","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The status of health monitoring practices in protected areas (PAs) is largely unknown, but potential gaps could undermine biodiversity conservation at these key sites. There is also a lack of baseline information regarding local perceptions of wildlife, human, and livestock health relevance that could affect health monitoring implementation in PAs. To address these deficiencies, we conducted a web-based survey of data managers from PAs worldwide. Specifically, we assessed perceptions regarding wildlife health and pathogen transmission between wildlife, humans, and livestock; the detection and documentation of unhealthy wildlife (injured, sick, and dead) and domestic animals in PAs; and health data management. Eighty-six out of 128 responses were analyzed. Respondents considered WH relevant to the conservation goals of PAs (97%), and 98% of them confirmed that unhealthy wildlife are encountered. However, >50% and >20% of respondents claimed that injured or sick and dead animals were not recorded, respectively. When these animals were documented, the recording methods and information collected differed. Although respondents considered domestic animal presence common and a conservation concern, these animals or their health status may not be recorded (30% and 74%, respectively). Health data were often stored in a database, but paper forms and spreadsheets were also used. Responses suggested that valuable syndromic wildlife health surveillance data from PAs are not collected or are lost due to inadequate management and their value could be limited by a lack of standardized recording protocols.</p>","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":" ","pages":"e70076"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Conservation Biology","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.70076","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The status of health monitoring practices in protected areas (PAs) is largely unknown, but potential gaps could undermine biodiversity conservation at these key sites. There is also a lack of baseline information regarding local perceptions of wildlife, human, and livestock health relevance that could affect health monitoring implementation in PAs. To address these deficiencies, we conducted a web-based survey of data managers from PAs worldwide. Specifically, we assessed perceptions regarding wildlife health and pathogen transmission between wildlife, humans, and livestock; the detection and documentation of unhealthy wildlife (injured, sick, and dead) and domestic animals in PAs; and health data management. Eighty-six out of 128 responses were analyzed. Respondents considered WH relevant to the conservation goals of PAs (97%), and 98% of them confirmed that unhealthy wildlife are encountered. However, >50% and >20% of respondents claimed that injured or sick and dead animals were not recorded, respectively. When these animals were documented, the recording methods and information collected differed. Although respondents considered domestic animal presence common and a conservation concern, these animals or their health status may not be recorded (30% and 74%, respectively). Health data were often stored in a database, but paper forms and spreadsheets were also used. Responses suggested that valuable syndromic wildlife health surveillance data from PAs are not collected or are lost due to inadequate management and their value could be limited by a lack of standardized recording protocols.

全球分布的保护区对野生动物健康的认识和监测做法。
保护区健康监测实践的现状在很大程度上是未知的,但潜在的差距可能会破坏这些关键地点的生物多样性保护。当地对野生动物、人类和牲畜健康相关性的认知也缺乏基线信息,这可能会影响保护区健康监测的实施。为了解决这些不足,我们对全球pa的数据管理人员进行了一项基于网络的调查。具体而言,我们评估了对野生动物健康和野生动物、人类和牲畜之间病原体传播的看法;在保护区发现和记录不健康的野生动物(受伤、生病和死亡)和家畜;以及健康数据管理。对128个回复中的86个进行了分析。受访者认为野生动物与保护区的保护目标相关(97%),其中98%的人确认遇到过不健康的野生动物。然而,分别有50%和20%的受访者声称没有记录受伤或生病和死亡的动物。当这些动物被记录下来时,记录方法和收集的信息有所不同。虽然受访者认为家畜的存在是普遍的,是一个保护问题,但这些动物或它们的健康状况可能没有记录(分别为30%和74%)。健康数据通常存储在数据库中,但也使用纸质表格和电子表格。答复表明,由于管理不当,保护区没有收集或丢失有价值的综合征野生动物健康监测数据,其价值可能因缺乏标准化记录协议而受到限制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Conservation Biology
Conservation Biology 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
12.70
自引率
3.20%
发文量
175
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Conservation Biology welcomes submissions that address the science and practice of conserving Earth's biological diversity. We encourage submissions that emphasize issues germane to any of Earth''s ecosystems or geographic regions and that apply diverse approaches to analyses and problem solving. Nevertheless, manuscripts with relevance to conservation that transcend the particular ecosystem, species, or situation described will be prioritized for publication.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信