Geology topics

Jonathan M. Sleeman

Publications and source records attributed to Jonathan M. Sleeman.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2024

One Health best practice case study: Advancing national One Health coordination in the United States through the One Health zoonotic disease prioritization process

The U.S. government advances One Health coordination through the best practices of jointly developing shared priorities and utilizing formalized coordination platforms to connect partners from public health, agriculture, wildlife, environment, and other sectors at the national, subnational (e.g. state, tribal, local, and territorial), and non-governmental levels (e.g. academia, industry, non-governmental organizations, and the public) levels. Coordinated efforts were strengthened through the U.S. One Health Zoonotic Disease Prioritization (OHZDP) workshop in 2017, which led to the prioritization of eight zoonotic diseases and development of next steps and action plans for One Health collaboration across federal agencies (Prioritizing Zoonotic Diseases for Multisectoral, One Health Collaboration in the United States, 2017). This One Health best practice was used to prioritize the top endemic and emerging zoonoses of greatest concern for the United States, identify gaps, and define plans for U.S. government One Health collaboration to address the priority zoonotic diseases. Multiple actions that strengthened One Health coordination were enacted, including establishing the One Health Federal Interagency COVID-19 Coordination (OH-FICC) group. To further advance One Health in the United States, Congress mandated that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Department of the Interior, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture collaborate to develop the National One Health Framework to Address Zoonotic Diseases and Advance Public Health Preparedness in the United States as well as formalize a One Health, multisectoral coordination mechanism, the United States One Health Coordination Unit at the federal level (Appropriations Committee Report, 2021; Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023). Enhancing national level One Health coordination in the United States has also helped advance collaboration with subnational and non-governmental levels to address timely One Health issues.

One Health Cases↗

USGS2024

Wildlife health capacity enhancement in Thailand through the World Organisation for Animal Health Twinning Program

There is an increasing need for robust wildlife health programs that provide surveillance and management for diseases in wildlife and wild aquatic populations to manage associated risks. This paper illustrates the value of a systematic method to enhancing wildlife health programs. The U.S. Geological Survey and Mahidol University, Faculty of Veterinary Science, Thailand National Wildlife Health Center formally twinned under the auspices of the World Organisation for Animal Health to enhance wildlife health capacity in Thailand and the Southeast Asia Region. We used a system-wide approach to holistically and interdependently enhance capacity. The project commenced with a wildlife health program needs assessment, and capacity enhancement focused on strengthening the general wildlife health surveillance network and improving wildlife health information management. Activities included partner surveys, interactive and didactic workshops, and individual personnel training. Topics included development of wildlife health information management systems, analysis of the current surveillance network, development of a Theory of Change for a strengthened surveillance network, planning workshops to create a wildlife health network, training on wildlife disease outbreak investigation and field sample collection, leading networks, and individual training on bioinformatics and laboratory techniques. Engagement of stakeholders at all levels, continuous communication throughout the project, use of both strategic planning tools and pedagogical methods, and using iterative and adaptive approaches, were key factors to the success of this project.

Frontiers in Veterinary Science↗

USGS2024

New approaches to wildlife health

Recent environmental change and biodiversity loss have modified ecosystems, altering disease dynamics. For wildlife health, this trend has translated into increased potential for disease transmission and reduced capacity to overcome significant population-level impacts, which may place species at risk of extinction. Thus, current approaches to wildlife health focus not on the absence of disease but rather on the concept of health promotion. That is, wildlife populations will be more resilient to disease if they have the basic requirements for survival, as well as functioning ecosystems, within an enabling socio-economic environment. In this context, animal health programmes must adapt to design and implement wildlife health programmes that bridge knowledge gaps and fully integrate conservation goals. This article proposes new pathways and additions to the animal health management toolbox, including new approaches to surveillance and information management, partnerships and new wildlife health management practices. Solely because of risks to domesticated animals and human health, the traditional approach to disease surveillance in wild animals has now been replaced by a drive to recognise the intrinsic value of wildlife and the extended benefits of actively pursuing ecosystem health and associated life-sustaining ecosystem services. In this context, it is paramount to transition to holistic health programmes that embrace One Health as a pathway to set the health of all on equal footing.

Scientific and Technical Review↗

USGS2023

Stakeholder attitudes and perspectives on wildlife disease surveillance as a component of a One Health approach in Thailand

Coordinated wildlife disease surveillance (WDS) can help professionals across disciplines effectively safeguard human, animal, and environmental health. The aims of this study were to understand how WDS in Thailand is utilized, valued, and can be improved within a One Health framework. An online questionnaire was distributed to 183 professionals (55.7% response rate) across Thailand working in wildlife, marine animal, livestock, domestic animal, zoo animal, environmental, and public health sectors. Twelve semi-structured interviews with key professionals were then performed. Three-quarters of survey respondents reported using WDS data and information. Sectors agreed upon ranking disease control (76.5% of respondents) as the most beneficial outcome of WDS, while fostering new ideas through collaboration was valued by few participants (2.0%). Accessing data collected by ones own sector was identified as the most challenging (50%) yet least difficult to improve (88.3%). Having legal authority to conduct WDS was the second most frequently identified challenge. Interviewees explained that legal documentation required for crossinstitutional collaborations posed a barrier to efficient communication and use of human resources. Survey respondents identified allocation of human resources (75.5%), adequate budget (71.6%), and having a clear communication system between sectors (71.6%) as highest priority areas for improvement to WDS in Thailand. Authorization from administrative officials and support from local community members were identified as challenges during in-person interviews. Future outreach should be directed towards these groups. As 42.9% of marine health professionals had difficulty knowing whom to contact in other sectors and 28.4% of survey respondents indicated that communication with marine health professionals was not applicable to their work, connecting the marine sector with other sectors may be prioritized. This study identifies priorities for addressing current challenges in the establishment of a general WDS system and information management system in Thailand while presenting a model for such evaluation in other regions.

One Health Newsletter↗

USGS2023

Wildlife health surveillance: Gaps, needs and opportunities

Disease emergence represent a global threat for public health, economy, and biological conservation and most of the emerging diseases have zoonotic origin from wildlife. To prevent their spread and to support the implementation of control measures, disease surveillance and reporting systems are needed, and due to globalisation, these activities should be carried at world level. To define the main gaps affecting the performances of wildlife health surveillance and reporting systems at word level, we analysed the Wildlife Disease Surveillance Survey submitted to all Members of World Organisation for Animal Health which inquire on structure and limits of surveillance and reporting systems. The response from 103 Members, covering all world areas, showed that 54.4% of them have a wildlife disease surveillance programme and 66% implemented a strategy to manage their spread. The lack of dedicated budget affected the possibility of outbreak investigations, sampling collection and diagnostic testing. Although most Members maintain records relating to wildlife mortality or morbidity events in centralised databases, data analyses and disease risk assessment are reported as main needs. Our evaluation of surveillance capacity showed an overall low level associated to great variability between Members not restricted to specific geographical area. A better recognition of the value of wildlife disease surveillance resulting in allocation of adequate resources by governments would make wildlife disease surveillance systems more functional. Moreover, the future comprehension of the influence of socio-economic, cultural and biodiversity aspects will be essential to increase better disease surveillance under One Health approach.

Scientific and Technical Review↗

USGS2022

Future directions to manage wildlife health in a changing climate

In September 2019 The Economist wrote an obituary to Okjökull, a glacier in western Iceland that was declared “dead” in 2014, a victim of climate change. Although a few wildlife species have already incurred such a fate (e.g., the Bramble Cay melomys [ Melomys rubicola ]) (Fulton 2017), many more are on the path to climate-driven extinction (Andermann et al. 2020; Ceballos et al. 2015; He et al. 2019; Roman-Palacios and Wiens 2020; Sanchez-Bayo and Wyckhuys 2019; WWF 2020).

EcoHealth↗

USGS2022

Leading change with diverse stakeholders

The shift to holistic approaches to managing wildlife health, and the complex landscape of partners and stakeholders, has led to a focus on the development of leadership skills in addition to technical expertise. This chapter introduces key elements and core skills for successful cross-sectoral and transdisciplinary leadership that will help wildlife health practitioners effectively lead change toward integrated, mutually beneficial health outcomes for all sectors. Leading change benefits from having good individual leadership skills, including emotional intelligence or the capacity to be aware of, control, and express one’s emotions, and to handle interpersonal relationships judiciously and empathetically. Driving multi-sectoral change is facilitated by wildlife health professionals becoming champions for change and being empowered to form and lead teams and participate effectively on governance structures such as interagency committees or working groups. Finally, the four main elements in leading change are envisioning the future state, engaging key stakeholders and coalition building, identifying barriers and breaking down resistance to change, and institutionalizing change. Effective leadership can be enabled by being open to new ideas, constantly questioning the effectiveness of one’s approach, and a commitment to lifelong learning. Application of these leadership skills and approaches can help effect change, resulting in improved wildlife population health.

Book chapter↗

USGS2022

Evaluating the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission to bats in the context of wildlife research, rehabilitation, and control

Preventing wildlife disease outbreaks is a priority for natural resource agencies, and management decisions can be urgent, especially in epidemic circumstances. With the emergence of SARS-CoV-2, wildlife agencies were concerned whether the activities they authorize might increase the risk of viral transmission from humans to North American bats, but had a limited amount of time in which to make decisions. We describe how decision analysis provides a powerful framework to analyze and reanalyze complex natural resource management problems as knowledge evolves. Coupled with expert judgment and avenues for the rapid release of information, risk assessment can provide timely scientific information for evolving decisions. In April 2020, the first rapid risk assessment was conducted to evaluate the risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from humans to North American bats. Based on the best available information and relying heavily on expert judgment, the risk assessment found a small possibility of transmission during summer work activities. Following that assessment, additional knowledge and data emerged, such as bat viral challenge studies, that further elucidated the risks of human-to-bat transmission and culminated in a second risk assessment in the fall of 2020. We updated the first SARS-CoV-2 risk assessment with new management alternatives and new estimates of little brown bat ( Myotis lucifugus ) susceptibility, using findings from the fall 2020 assessment and other empirical studies. We found that new knowledge led to an 88% decrease in the median number of bats estimated to be infected per 1,000 encountered when compared to earlier results. The use of facemasks during, or a negative COVID-19 test or vaccination prior to, bat encounters further reduced those risks. Using a combination of decision analysis, expert judgment, rapid risk assessment, and efficient modes of information distribution, we provided timely science-based support to decision makers for summer bat work in North America.

Wildlife Society Bulletin↗

USGS2022

Highly pathogenic avian influenza is an emerging disease threat to wild birds in North America

Prior to the emergence of the A/goose/Guangdong/1/1996 (Gs/GD) H5N1 influenza A virus, the long-held and well-supported paradigm was that highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) outbreaks were restricted to poultry, the result of cross-species transmission of precursor viruses from wild aquatic birds that subsequently gained pathogenicity in domestic birds. Therefore, management agencies typically adopted a prevention, control, and eradication strategy that included strict biosecurity for domestic bird production, isolation of infected and exposed flocks, and prompt depopulation. In most cases, this strategy has proved sufficient for eradicating HPAI. Since 2002, this paradigm has been challenged with many detections of viral descendants of the Gs/GD lineage among wild birds, most of which have been associated with sporadic mortality events. Since the emergence and evolution of the genetically distinct clade 2.3.4.4 Gs/GD lineage HPAI viruses in approximately 2010, there have been further increases in the occurrence of HPAI in wild birds and geographic spread through migratory bird movement. A prominent example is the introduction of clade 2.3.4.4 Gs/GD HPAI viruses from East Asia to North America via migratory birds in autumn 2014 that ultimately led to the largest outbreak of HPAI in the history of the United States. Given the apparent maintenance of Gs/GD lineage HPAI viruses in a global avian reservoir; bidirectional virus exchange between wild and domestic birds facilitating the continued adaptation of Gs/GD HPAI viruses in wild bird hosts; the current frequency of HPAI outbreaks in wild birds globally, and particularly in Eurasia where Gs/GD HPAI viruses may now be enzootic; and ongoing dispersal of AI viruses from East Asia to North America via migratory birds, HPAI now represents an emerging disease threat to North American wildlife. This recent paradigm shift implies that management of HPAI in domestic birds alone may no longer be sufficient to eradicate HPAI viruses from a given country or region. Rather, agencies managing wild birds and their habitats may consider the development or adoption of mitigation strategies to minimize introductions to poultry, to reduce negative impacts on wild bird populations, and to diminish adverse effects to stakeholders using wildlife resources. The main objective of this review is, therefore, to provide information that will assist wildlife managers in developing mitigation strategies or approaches for dealing with outbreaks of Gs/GD HPAI in wild birds in the form of preparedness, surveillance, research, communications, and targeted management actions. Resultant outbreak response plans and actions may represent meaningful steps of wildlife managers toward the use of collaborative and multi-jurisdictional One Health approaches when it comes to the detection, investigation, and mitigation of emerging viruses at the human-domestic animal-wildlife interface.

Journal of Wildlife Management↗

USGS2022

Management of diseases in free-ranging wildlife populations

Diseases are increasingly threatening the conservation of wildlife species. Spillover of pathogens into humans and domestic animals may negatively impact public health and the economy, requiring increased proactive management actions. The North American Wildlife Management Model provides the philosophical basis for managing wildlife and underpins all management options. Diseases in wildlife populations may be managed by manipulation of the environment, manipulation of the host, manipulation of the agent, and modification of human behavior. Important considerations include setting management goals, and metrics to assess success. Future strategies include using systems and One Health approaches to develop interventions that optimize outcomes for humans, animals, and the environment.

Book chapter↗

USGS2021

Outside the box: Working with wildlife in biocontainment

Research with captive wildlife in Animal Biosafety Level 2 (ABSL2) and 3 (ABSL3) facilities is becoming increasingly necessary as emerging and re-emerging diseases involving wildlife have increasing impacts on human, animal, and environmental health. Utilizing wildlife species in a research facility often requires outside the box thinking with specialized knowledge, practices, facilities, and equipment. The USGS National Wildlife Health Center (NWHC) houses an ABSL3 facility dedicated to understanding wildlife diseases and developing tools to mitigate their impacts on animal and human health. This review presents considerations for utilizing captive wildlife for infectious disease studies, including, husbandry, animal welfare, veterinary care, and biosafety. Examples are drawn from primary literature review and collective 40-year experience of the NWHC. Working with wildlife in ABSL2 and ABSL3 facilities differs from laboratory animals in that typical laboratory housing systems, husbandry practices, and biosafety practices are not designed for work with wildlife. This requires thoughtful adaptation of standard equipment and practices, invention of customized solutions and development of appropriate enrichment plans using the natural history of the species and the microbiological characteristics of introduced and native pathogens. Ultimately, this task requires critical risk assessment, understanding of the physical and psychological needs of diverse species, creativity, innovation, and flexibility. Finally, continual reassessment and improvement are imperative in this constantly changing specialty area of infectious disease and environmental hazard research.

ILAR Journal↗

USGS2021

Implications of zoonoses from hunting and use of wildlife in North American arctic and boreal biomes: Pandemic potential, monitoring, and mitigation

The COVID-19 pandemic has re-focused attention on mechanisms that lead to zoonotic disease spillover and spread. Commercial wildlife trade, and associated markets, are recognized mechanisms for zoonotic disease emergence, resulting in a growing global conversation around reducing human disease risks from spillover associated with hunting, trade, and consumption of wild animals. These discussions are especially relevant to people who rely on harvesting wildlife to meet nutritional, and cultural needs, including those in Arctic and boreal regions. Global policies around wildlife use and trade can impact food sovereignty and security, especially of Indigenous Peoples. We reviewed known zoonotic pathogens and current risks of transmission from wildlife (including fish) to humans in North American Arctic and boreal biomes, and evaluated the epidemic and pandemic potential of these zoonoses. We discuss future concerns, and consider monitoring and mitigation measures in these changing socio-ecological systems. While multiple zoonotic pathogens circulate in these systems, risks to humans are mostly limited to individual illness or local community outbreaks. These regions are relatively remote, subject to very cold temperatures, have relatively low wildlife, domestic animal, and pathogen diversity, and in many cases low density, including of humans. Hence, favorable conditions for emergence of novel diseases or major amplification of a spillover event are currently not present. The greatest risk to northern communities from pathogens of pandemic potential is via introduction with humans visiting from other areas. However, Arctic and boreal ecosystems are undergoing rapid changes through climate warming, habitat encroachment, and development; all of which can change host and pathogen relationships, thereby affecting the probability of the emergence of new (and re-emergence of old) zoonoses. Indigenous leadership and engagement in disease monitoring, prevention and response, is vital from the outset, and would increase the success of such efforts, as well as ensure the protection of Indigenous rights as outlined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Partnering with northern communities and including Indigenous Knowledge Systems would improve the timeliness, and likelihood, of detecting emerging zoonotic risks, and contextualize risk assessments to the unique human-wildlife relationships present in northern biomes.

Frontiers in Public Health↗

USGS2021

Risks posed by SARS‐CoV‐2 to North American bats during winter fieldwork

The virus that causes COVID‐19 likely evolved in a mammalian host, possibly Old‐World bats, before adapting to humans, raising the question of whether reverse zoonotic transmission to bats is possible. Wildlife management agencies in North America are concerned that the activities they authorize could lead to transmission of SARS‐CoV‐2 to bats from humans. A rapid risk assessment conducted in April 2020 suggested that there was a small but significant possibility that SARS‐CoV‐2 could be transmitted from humans to bats during summer fieldwork, absent precautions. Subsequent challenge studies in a laboratory setting have shed new information on these risks, as has more detailed information on human epidemiology and transmission. This inquiry focuses on the risk to bats from winter fieldwork, specifically surveys of winter roosts and handling of bats to test for white‐nose syndrome or other research needs. We use an aerosol transmission model, with parameter estimates both from the literature and from formal expert judgment, to estimate the risk to three species of North American bats, as a function of several factors. We find that risks of transmission are lower than in the previous assessment and are notably affected by chamber volume and local prevalence of COVID‐19. Use of facemasks with high filtration efficiency or a negative COVID‐19 test before field surveys can reduce zoonotic risk by 65 to 88%.

Conservation Science and Practice↗

USGS2021

Animal reservoirs and hosts for emerging alphacoronaviruses and betacoronaviruses

The ongoing global pandemic caused by coronavirus disease has once again demonstrated the role of the family Coronaviridae in causing human disease outbreaks. Because severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 was first detected in December 2019, information on its tropism, host range, and clinical manifestations in animals is limited. Given the limited information, data from other coronaviruses might be useful for informing scientific inquiry, risk assessment, and decision-making. We reviewed endemic and emerging infections of alphacoronaviruses and betacoronaviruses in wildlife, livestock, and companion animals and provide information on the receptor use, known hosts, and clinical signs associated with each host for 15 coronaviruses detected in humans and animals. This information can be used to guide implementation of a One Health approach that involves human health, animal health, environmental, and other relevant partners in developing strategies for preparedness, response, and control to current and future coronavirus disease threats.

Emerging Infectious Diseases↗

USGS2020

Possibility for reverse zoonotic transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to free-ranging wildlife: A case study of bats

The COVID-19 pandemic highlights the substantial public health, economic, and societal consequences of virus spillover from a wildlife reservoir. Widespread human transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) also presents a new set of challenges when considering viral spillover from people to naïve wildlife and other animal populations. The establishment of new wildlife reservoirs for SARS-CoV-2 would further complicate public health control measures and could lead to wildlife health and conservation impacts. Given the likely bat origin of SARS-CoV-2 and related beta-coronaviruses (β-CoVs), free-ranging bats are a key group of concern for spillover from humans back to wildlife. Here, we review the diversity and natural host range of β-CoVs in bats and examine the risk of humans inadvertently infecting free-ranging bats with SARS-CoV-2. Our review of the global distribution and host range of β-CoV evolutionary lineages suggests that 40+ species of temperate-zone North American bats could be immunologically naïve and susceptible to infection by SARS-CoV-2. We highlight an urgent need to proactively connect the wellbeing of human and wildlife health during the current pandemic and to implement new tools to continue wildlife research while avoiding potentially severe health and conservation impacts of SARS-CoV-2 "spilling back" into free-ranging bat populations.

PLoS Pathogens↗

USGS2020

Assessing the risks posed by SARS-CoV-2 in and via North American bats — Decision framing and rapid risk assessment

The novel β-coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, may pose a threat to North American bat populations if bats are exposed to the virus through interaction with humans, if the virus can subsequently infect bats and be transmitted among them, and if the virus causes morbidity or mortality in bats. Further, if SARS-CoV-2 became established in bat populations, it could possibly serve as a source for new infection in humans, domesticated animals, or other wild animals. Wildlife management agencies in the United States are concerned about these potential risks and have begun to issue guidance regarding work that brings humans into contact with bats, but decision making is difficult because of the high degree of uncertainty about many of the relevant processes that could lead to virus transmission and establishment. The risk assessment described in this report was undertaken to provide management agencies with an understanding of the likelihood that the various steps in the causal pathways would lead to SARS-CoV-2 infection of North American bats from people. This assessment focused on the active season for bats in the temperate zone of North America (April 15 through November 15), and used Myotis lucifugus (little brown bats) as a surrogate species. At the time of this work (April 2020), no empirical data about the effects of SARS-CoV-2 on North American bats were available, so a formal process of expert judgment was used to elicit estimates of the underlying parameters. Twelve experts in bat ecology, epidemiology, virology, and wildlife disease from the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia participated in the elicitation. A Monte Carlo simulation model was used to integrate the parameter estimates elicited from the experts and to predict the likelihood of exposure and infection in bats through a series of transmission pathways, with particular attention to capturing uncertainty in the predictions. Given the current state of knowledge as expressed by the expert panel, the results of this assessment indicate that there is a non-negligible risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from humans to bats. For example, if a research scientist were shedding SARS-CoV-2 virus while handling bats under the field protocols used in North America prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the risk model indicates that 50 percent (uncertainty, 15–84 percent) of those bats could be exposed to virus, and 17 percent (uncertainty, 3–51 percent) could become infected. Use of personal protective equipment, especially a respirator, is expected to reduce the exposure risk. The expert panel estimated that exposure risk from research scientists could be reduced 94–96 percent (uncertainty, 86–99 percent) through proper use of appropriate N95 respirators (a type of mechanical filter worn over the nose and mouth), dedicated clothing (such as Tyvek coveralls), and gloves. Should any North American bats become infected with SARS-CoV-2, the expert panel estimated that there is an approximately 33-percent chance the virus could spread within a bat population. This study, conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, identified several critical uncertainties that could affect the estimate of risks associated with SARS-CoV-2 entering bat populations—notably, the underlying probability that a human would be shedding virus while working with bats, the likelihood of the virus replicating in bat tissue, and the likelihood of transmission of the virus within bat populations. Ongoing empirical work during May–October 2020 may shed light on these issues. Follow-up work is needed to better understand the probability of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to bats from the general public; the manner in which the probabilities of exposure, infection, and transmission would differ during hibernation compared to the breeding season; and the likelihood of important effects, like morbidity and mortality in bats, the possibility of zoonosis from a North American bat reservoir, and effects of and on other wildlife.

North America↗

USGS2020

Eradication of peste des petits ruminants and the wildlife-livestock interface

Growing evidence suggests that multiple wildlife species can be infected with peste des petits ruminants virus (PPRV), with important consequences for the potential maintenance of PPRV in communities of susceptible hosts, and the threat that PPRV may pose to the conservation of wildlife populations and resilience of ecosystems. Significant knowledge gaps in the epidemiology of PPRV across the ruminant community (wildlife and domestic), and the understanding of infection in wildlife and other atypical host species groups (e.g., camelidae, suidae, and bovinae) hinder our ability to apply necessary integrated disease control and management interventions at the wildlife-livestock interface. Similarly, knowledge gaps limit the inclusion of wildlife in the FAO/OIE Global Strategy for the Control and Eradication of PPR, and the framework of activities in the PPR Global Eradication Programme that lays the foundation for eradicating PPR through national and regional efforts. This article reports on the first international meeting on, “Controlling PPR at the livestock-wildlife interface,” held in Rome, Italy, March 27–29, 2019. A large group representing national and international institutions discussed recent advances in our understanding of PPRV in wildlife, identified knowledge gaps and research priorities, and formulated recommendations. The need for a better understanding of PPRV epidemiology at the wildlife-livestock interface to support the integration of wildlife into PPR eradication efforts was highlighted by meeting participants along with the reminder that PPR eradication and wildlife conservation need not be viewed as competing priorities, but instead constitute two requisites of healthy socio-ecological systems.

Frontiers in Veterinary Science↗

USGS2020

An ecological and conservation perspective

Natural ecosystems are facing unprecedented threats which directly threaten human well-being through decreases in critical ecosystem services (IPBES 2019). The top five drivers causing the largest global impacts to biodiversity and ecosystem services include: 1) changes in land and sea use; 2) direct exploitation of organisms; 3) climate change; 4) pollution, and 5) invasive alien species (IPBES 2019). Although One Health acknowledges the link between the health of humans, animals, and the environment, One Health discussions have historically focused on the prevention and control of infectious disease at the human-animal interface rather than these large-scale drivers of health. While One Health has succeeded in bringing awareness to the need for proactive disease control measures such as strengthened biosecurity and vaccine development (e.g., Machalaba et al., 2018; Middleton et al., 2014), disease is only one component of health. In this chapter, we explore the potential for One Health to shift its focus from disease prevention to health promotion to more fully integrate solutions that protect the health of humans, animals, and the ecosystems on which we all depend for our economies, livelihoods, food security, and health. This shift will facilitate a more seamless inclusion of ecological health and environmental conservation in the One Health paradigm and can serve as the basis for a comprehensive approach to complex problems at the root of global health. We also suggest a framework for creating and applying health metrics for wildlife and ecological systems that will be essential for measuring the success of actions aimed at maintaining or shifting systems to desired states.

Book chapter↗