Abstract
Emerging Infectious Diseases (EIDs) are recognised as global extinction drivers of threatened species. Unfortunately, biodiversity managers have few tested solutions to manage them when often the desperate need for solutions necessitates a response. Here we test in situ biosecurity protocols to assess the efficacy of managing Psittacine beak and feather disease (PBFD), one of the most common and emergent viral diseases in wild parrots (Psittaciformes) that is currently affecting numerous threatened species globally. In response to an outbreak of PBFD in Mauritius “echo” parakeets (Psittacula eques), managers implemented a set of biosecurity protocols to limit transmission and impact of Beak and feather disease virus (BFDV). Here we used a reciprocal design experiment on the wild population to test whether BFDV management reduced viral prevalence and viral load, and improved nestling body condition and fledge success. Whilst management reduced the probability of nestling infection by approximately 11% there was no observed impact on BFDV load and nestling body condition. In contrast to expectations there was lower fledge success in nests with added BFDV biosecurity (83% in untreated vs. 79% in treated nests). Our results clearly illustrate that management for wildlife conservation should be critically evaluated through targeted monitoring and experimental manipulation, and this evaluation should always focus on the fundamental objective of conservation.
Highlights
Emerging infectious diseases (EIDs) are key contributors to the current global biodiversity crisis[1,2]
Psittacine beak and feather disease (PBFD) is caused by the Beak and feather disease virus (BFDV) and the disease has been implicated in the decline of many wild parrot populations, including the endangered Cape parrot (Poicephalus robustus) of South Africa[25], the Australian orange-bellied parrot (Neophema chrysogaster)[26] and the Mauritius “echo” parakeet (Psittacula eques)[27]
When the interaction between treatment and distance to nearest feeding hopper was explored, it indicated that the probability of nestling infection with BFDV was lower both when the distance to supplementary feeding hopper was greater and when nest site management is done (Fig. 2)
Summary
Emerging infectious diseases (EIDs) are key contributors to the current global biodiversity crisis[1,2]. The disinfection of water bodies associated with the spread of avian cholera[14] and liming around feeding stations to reduce the prevalence of lungworms in hares[15] Various combinations of these strategies have been broadly applied across taxonomic www.nature.com/scientificreports/. Management actions aimed at reducing EID transmission in situ are mostly reactive and the efficacy of only a few have been thoroughly assessed[13,17,18] These management actions are often modified versions of those used in clinical settings and based on expert knowledge of wildlife health specialists. Their application is rarely backed by critical evaluation of their ability to reduce transmission (the means to threatened host species recovery) and aid recovery of the threatened host species (the fundamental objective). The emergence of PBFD has directly impacted species recovery programmes by altering how and what management tools are used (e.g. captive breeding, translocation, cross fostering[29,30])
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
