Sunteți pe pagina 1din 9

Parasite Control concerning Wildlife Conservation

Game & Exotic Animal Breeding and Pathology


Paddy Geoffrey Flavell Martin

Parasites play their part in the keeping of a natural and healthy ecosystem.
When it comes to the conservation of endangered species though their detrimental impacts
upon their hosts can have them amongst the frontline sights in the fight for their survival,
where more often than not protecting these larger vertebrates is the sole focus and the
parasites and their value as a natural force of equilibrium is forgotten. Not only can we look
at this from a point of biodiversity but also at the sometimes counterproductive results of our
efforts stemmed from the lack of understanding and thought behind the mechanisms of these
parasitic relations. Immunological naivety, unbalanced parasitic competition, new invasive
species, all contribute to corrupting the simplest equilibrium which results from natural
selection. So as the need for control strategies against these parasites grow as the threat they
pose to the hosts’ chances of survival decreases, there must also be a parallel consideration
for the impact they have in the complete ecosystem as well as the possible establishment of
parasite conservation strategies in species-specific cases.

Parasites are a driving force behind biodiversity and evolution acting through the
natural selection of a hosts genetic and phenotypic diversity both at the physical level as well
as a social one (capable of changing the very structure of its hosts communities).
Coextinction of these dependant species whether they be parasitic, mutualists, commensals
can magnify the loss of biodiversity and this phenomenon is greatly underappreciated (upto
50% of parasite species are threatened). Obviously though they can be a final blow to already
wavering populations of endangered host populations (especially when often already stressed
with inbreeding, pollutants, habitat loss and other conditions which lead to
immunosuppression and higher pathogenesis) which is why control and conservation has to
step in. The importance lies in balancing the ecological value of the parasites and the need to
protect the species of concern.

Reasons for control can be as simple as severe population declines. For example,
between the years 1990–1992 69% of the Bale Mountain Ethiopian wolf population was lost
due to the rabies virus. Often it is not directly due to the parasites themselves but due to the
results of declining body conditions (increasing chances of predation or reducing the chances
of a successful hunt), reduced growth and fertility, exacerbating pre-existing threats, etc.
Parasite-host interactions are a factor in population dynamics such can be seen in the rock
ptarmigan (Lagopus muta) infested by a combination of coccidians Eimeria muta and
Eimeria rjupa, nematodes Capillaria caudinflata and Trichostrongylus tenuis, chewing louse
Amyrsidea Lagopi and skin mite Metamicrolichus islandicus. The study (Stenkewitz et al.
2016) showed that the prevalence of E.muta followed that of the population density of its host
during a 10 year cycle with a 1.5 year time lag in between. Together with the rest of parasites
through a combination of lower fecundity, detrimental body condition, and higher mortalities
these species all play a significant role in each other’s population dynamics. On another note
climate change as well as human impact is certainly bringing together new species
interactions and immunological stresses which further put our host species at risk. One of the
most devastating examples is that of Pseudogymnoascus destructans responsible for White
Nose Syndrome in North American bat species. Since its appearance in 2006 the population
has been decimated with a mean decline of 73% (Frick et al. 2010). Shifting complete
populations of insects and other predators out of balance. All because of an invasive species
of fungi introduced anthropologically from Eurasia (where the bat populations evolved
inherently alongside of this pathogen and developed immunological resistance).

Detrimental results of the control of parasites can obviously have a multitude of


unintended consequences. They form part of a healthy ecosystem as we’ve discussed and are
a piece of the food webs. Control can eliminate the natural parasitic competition that exists
inside the host and in the environment, opportunistic bacteria are a fine example and is the
case of Clostridium difficile antibiotic-associated colitis. It can also reduce the resistance of
future generations of the host to the parasites in which these naïve individuals will have no
immunological experience and suffer a stronger pathogenesis. This must be taken into
account when introducing these naïve animals (bred in captivity or elsewhere) into endemic
areas and can be managed through by pre-sensitizing, penned areas for a slow control
exposure and timing with the parasites usual low periods of infection. Due to the fact that
many parasites are heteroxenous they also affect competition between host species in which
there is a bias in the affinity/prevalence and/or pathogenicity. It’s the case of canine
distemper virus which affects the lions (Panthera leo), cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus), African
wild gog (Lycaoun pictus) amongst other carnivores of the savannah. This virus introduced
by dogs in the area no more than 500 years ago led to the local extinction of the wild dogs of
the Serengeti in 1993 and resulted in a massive mortality in lions which in 1994 killed an
estimated one third of the population. On the other hand cheetahs suffered considerably fewer
losses and along with the low number of lions the population boomed. Project Life Lion was
initiated to try to re-establish the situation by vaccinating all the domestic dogs of the area of
virus to remove the possible source of infection. The program worked and lion numbers
rebounded restoring the natural balance with cheetahs and other species.
Undoubtedly parasites have a major role behind evolution and speciation and so one
must consider them as fundamental and unique as their hosts when the aims of conservation
are to balancing the environment and provide stability to different natural processes of nature.
Naturally hosts are meant to be parasitized and all wild animal populations present them to a
lesser higher degree (89.1% of female blue tits have protozoan blood parasites, elk gastrointestinal
parasites have a prevalence of 48-57%, each snowhoe hare can have >15 adult nematodes, 84 % of
europeen eels have at least 1 helminth crustacean or metazoan, 70% of lungless salamanders have
ectoparasitic mites, etc.)

The guideline in parasitic control in endangered species is limited at best and usually
non-existent. Andrew Paul Stringer and Wayne Linklater in proposed a protocol of 4 guiding
principles which come down to;

Principle 1: The need for control is greatest when the host is critically endangered and the
parasite has a large impact on the performance of the species. Only could it be expanded to a
lesser concern species when these can act as a reservoir host which could act as a source.

Principle 2: As the need for control increases the control strategies used can be justified
despite a higher impact on the parasite population and ecosystem.
Principle 3: For host-specific parasites there is a requirement for active parasite conservation
and the creating parasite refuges. This way making a possible reintroduction in the long-term
if the host species recovers. We assume here that the parasite isn’t capable of shifting host
(considering it’s a mechanism just as likely if not more as cospeciation in the evolution and
diversity of parasites [De Vienne et al. 2013] but not neccesarily directly linked to the
scarcity of their initial host [Colwell et al. 2012]).

Principle 4: Control techniques that would go on to disrupt the hosts’ immunological


response to the parasitism should be avoided. The risk/threat of reinfections would only be
more dangerous to a weakened population. These strategies which include vaccination and
treatment should only be recurred to when the number of individuals is so low that they are
all necessary for the survival of the species.

Having said all of this before effectively being able to propose and put into action any
kind program of parasite control whether it be on a domestic or wild population of animal.
The first situation is to assess the situation, study the epidemiology, and measure the
prevalence and load of the parasites in the area of the study. Whilst in domestic animals
this can be done with a much higher level of accuracy and ease (all animals of the population
are accounted for, have a clinical history and the diagnostic methods can be performed with
ease including coprological, haematological, histiopathological, immunological -ELISA,
immunofluorescence, Western Blot, Complement Fixation- , molecular biological -PCR-.
Some limitations are found in the nature of the infestation dependent upon the pathogen with
periods with no kind of detectable footprint or in false positives possible in vaccinated
animals), in wild animals this assessment is a true burden.
Obstacles include the host animals where by visual information doesn’t give reliable
evidence of whether it is sick or not. They can conceal symptoms, especially in social
animals when mating, caring of offspring and competing with others. Searching for the sick
animals is just as reliable as they are the most likely to be predated or scavenged shortly after
death. Even when they’re still alive sick animals are most likely to be hidden away. When
searching for external parasites the animals must be sedated or killed and in the case of
internal ones killing is the only option. This makes it difficult, expensive and time consuming
to study parasitic burdens. Most wild animals are infected with many parasites of different
species possibly requiring different diagnostic techniques which results in many researchers
often delimiting their search to a specific parasite or group. Screening for viruses or bacteria
is also complex. The last obstacle is purely mathematical and implies statistics. Diseases be
they parasitic or not are caused by a combination of factors and result in many other
consequences. Generally one can only obtain correlative information from these studies and
not empirically causative relations. The method of obtaining the animals for research implies
a great deal of inaccuracy in itself. Traps, hunting, corpses, visual observation, as we
mentioned earlier it’s the healthy and most active animals the ones that are most likely to be
found. The disease weakened animals are more often eaten or hidden. And lastly some
individuals may present massive infestations linked to other problems (ex.
Immunosuppression) and will give a disproportionate effect on the burden of the population
(medians > mean when it comes to a more accurate estimation as it is less affected by
extreme values).
Different methods of parasite control dependent upon the threat posed by the
parasite and taking into account the individuals, ecosystem and the principles mentioned
previously. Classifying them by their detrimental impact on the hosts and ecosystem we have
the least damaging forms which simply aim to restore the normal ecological status via
eliminating immunosuppressing agents (reducing exposure to pollutants and connecting host
populations or performing translocations in order to diminish inbreeding), reducing the
epidemiological risk (through vaccination of livestock, reduction of the density of these
reservoirs if possible, establishment of buffer zones between livestock and wildlife) and
reintroduction of parasitic competitors (increasing competition will lower the abundance of
any particular pathogenic species). The host will naturally be selected and evolve alongside
the parasites. Next are the ecologically invasive strategies which in contrast to the previous
options alter the ecosystem functioning by simply achieving a reduced parasite burden. It can
be done by removing dead hosts which act as sources of reinfection (although we’re
removing a key part of the food web), translocation of hosts elsewhere to reduce density
(reduced role of the host in their natural environment) and reducing vector populations
whether it be by habitat modification or chemical trapping can lower transmission rates
(vectors too play their role in the ecosystem and these programs can lead to local extinctions).
Finally some strategies relieve the hosts on a short term scale but can be considered
evolutionarily disruptive and are potentially the most damaging. They are invasive and
directly interfere with the balance of the host-parasite arms race. These forms of control are
vaccination (greater reproductive success and survival of the initial generation but eventually
will lead to more susceptible hosts. It is inconsiderate for the parasites survival but can also
actually result in the selection of more virulent and resistant strains) and treatment (whether
by invasive methods giving a specific and accurate dose requiring intramuscular dart
administration, pour-on or capture and possible sedation, through medicated feed placed in
special feeders such as the Duncan applicator or simply disseminated in frequented areas [in
which case one must look for the highest therapeutical index to avoid adverse reactions,
assure that the drug is not toxic to other species which may accidentally ingest the feed,
consider the possible contamination of predators through predation and of soil and water
through drug elimination in faeces and urine, take into account the cumulative dose effect and
how it may stretch out over a period of time, calculate the necessary amount of drug for the
target population, in the case of prophylactic or standardized treatments study the most
effective period of treatment considering the epidemiology and lifecycle of the parasite etc.].
It eliminates the parasites from the host but can also have the inconveniences of selecting
towards more virulent and resistant strains as well as having undesired effects on non-target
parasites in the same host or even contaminate the environment and effect other hosts and/or
parasites). An example of a commonly used drug in parasitic control of ungulates is
fenbendazole and can be found in a FDA approved product Safe-Guard® and although not
being perfect it does respect most of the issues mentioned previously.
This is a broad ranking of control strategies ordered by their potential effects, but they
can’t be reduced down simply to the method itself, as this doesn’t take into account that it can
vary depending upon the intensity of the program. For example vaccinations can be of
interest when securing specific geographic corridors to prevent the spread of emerging
parasites or to protect vulnerable or important individuals whilst at the same time leaving
certain hosts as sentinels for disease detection and avoiding also local parasite extinction.
Analysing past parasite control programs in critically endangered species which
were infected with parasites that cause mortality is a good way to learn not only from past
mistakes but also cases which can serve as models for future strategies. In these situations
vaccination is usually the first option. In many cases this is the optimal strategy but taking
into account the status of the parasite as some kind of conservation strategy for them may
also be appropriate. Other times though this correct use of anti-parasitic measures has not
taken place.
It is the case for example of the government funded program in South Africa to breed
“disease free” game to replace the native wild populations, in particular of the African
buffalo (Syncerus caffer). The objective of this program was never to protect the buffalo
populations (a species of lesser concern on the IUCN Red list and with a broad gene pool) but
to eliminate these prevalent disease carriers as sources of infection for domestic cattle. The
endemic parasites include foot and mouth disease and corridor disease (caused by Theileria
parva which is transmitted by the Brown Ear tick, Rhipicephalus appendiculatus) cause
massive economic losses on the domestic cattle which have not coevolved beside these and
consequentially are extremely susceptible to them. In the buffalo corridor disease is a
subclinical parasite of least concern. On top of these they can also carry bovine tuberculosis
and brucellosis which has been introduced by cattle into the area. So from an ecological
perspective this program makes little sense, not only since it targets a species of lesser
concern fully capable of adapting and coexisting with these parasites, but also because in the
long run it promotes the immunological naivety of the species which puts it at a higher risk in
the case of future parasitic infections. The most effective program would have been to limit
the transmission of diseases between these wild animals and the domestic cattle. Corridor
disease can be controlled by limiting the risk of ticks both by finding low prevalence pastures
with no close contact to wild game or directly treating the cattle with insecticides.
Another is the use of broad-spectrum anthelmintic specifically Fenbendazole to
eliminate Protostrongylus spp. from Bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) populations as a
potential predisposing cause of bacterial pneumonia. Without a strongly understood
mechanism of the parasite and the fact that the target species is also of least concern this
control is unnecessary. Furthermore it has been seen to result in no significant decline of the
bacterial pneumonia (probably a multi-factorial disease with many causative agents) and
other methods such as antibiotics, vaccination, selective culling and depopulation have been
tried also with a lack of clear success. These practices show a lack of respect for the roles
parasites, bacteria and such play in the ecosystem and how these programs have been
undertaken with no need/urgency or proper understanding of the mechanisms involved.
A positive example of the correct parasitic control includes that of Proyecto Eremita
with the breeding and reintroduction of the Northern Bald Ibis (Geronticus eremita) to the
Iberian Peninsula after an absence of at least 500 years. Listed on the IUCN as critically
endangered this program has at the same time reintroduced two species of lice specific to
their host (Calpocephalum eremitae and Aredicola geronticorum). The captive breeding birds
at the Zoo de Jerez maintain a healthy parasitosis with the lice as it is observed they produce
no detrimental effects on their host. As we can see generalised treatments against parasites
when there is no real risk to the survival of the host is completely unnecessary and can
unknowingly further lead to the extinction of endangered species (in this case of the
parasites).
Another instance is that of the translocation of rhinos infected with the host specific
rhino bot fly larvae (Gyrostigma rhinocerontis), also the largest fly species in Africa, to other
populations where the fly had not recolonized. This is another instance of active parasite
conservation where it is obvious that the threat to the survival of the host species does not
depend on the presence of its natural parasites. Hopefully this way we can avoid the fate of
G. conjungens and G. sumatrensis, another two species of the same genus, which are
considered extinct with the last sightings in 1961 and 1884 respectively.
Although not precisely parasitic but of equal relevance was the program of control of
Feline Leucemia in the critically endangered Iberian Lynx (Lynx pardinus) in 2007. The first
FeLV positive cases appeared in 6 samples between 1993 and 2003 but they didn’t present
the p27 antigen indicative of the disease in blood (they were only latent infections). It was
obvious from genetic analysis of the virus that the source of infection were domestic cats.
The first active infection appeared in a female in 2004. Finally in 2007 an outbreak occurred
with 13 individuals from the Doñana population and 1 from Sierra Morena were infected.
The lynx population was especially susceptible due to the lack of previous exposure to
numerous pathogenic agents, the extremely small population size and resulting elevated
consanguinity only further compromised the immune system. It resulted in extreme
pathogenesis with the disease manifesting symptoms almost immediately and rapidly leading
to death. 6 of the individuals died with the other 7 recovering in captivity after a fast
intervention. This led to the creation of control program which ended with very positive
results. The objectives were to localise the disease in order to minimise its spread throughout
the population, eliminate the virus from the population and minimize the appearance of new
outbreaks. In the following 8 months many measure were taken: all infected animals were
culled, healthy animals with no previous exposure were vaccinated, artificial feeders and
waterers were modifies to minimize contact between different individuals, the reduction of
feral cats in the area, the vaccination of domestic cats and the genetic enrichment with
translocations from different populations . Finally 2 female lynx with latent infections were
released as their reproductive importance was a necessary for the viability of a smaller
individual population. No further large outbreaks have taken place to date but the species as a
whole is still largely at risk from epizootic diseases even though it is presently on a slow yet
steady path to recovery.

In conclusion it is obvious that the control of parasitic and all infectious diseases is an
incredibly difficult field of wildlife veterinary medicine but of great importance both on the
ecological/biodiversity side of the issue (regarding both hosts and their parasites) as well as
the economical aspect in regards to the impact that wildlife play as epidemiological sources
of infection and carriers of diseases that affect our domestic livestock. It is difficult to study
and evaluate at numerous levels, difficult to effectively control and fight, in other words it is
a complex field with no golden rules but rather needing case by case responses. New methods
and practices could be developed in order to facilitate the establishment of parasite burdens
and prevalence or in treating wild animals (easier application, higher efficacy, target
individual pathogens, reduce contamination into the environment, etc.). In any case though
the control of infectious and emerging diseases is a necessity to minimize the risk of
alteration to wildlife and ultimately the environment. Now the dangers truly posed to the
survival of endangered species by these pathogens is of least concern when compared to all
the other anthropogenic factors of much greater relevance such as habitat loss, climate
change, pollution, hunting/poaching/harvesting, invasive species, amongst other things. The
role of infectious diseases as a contributing factor in extinctions (considering 833 plants and
animals from the IUCN Red List and ISI Web of Science) is listed at <4% and when looking
at species critically endangered only compromises <8% of the cases (2852 species).
Personally even though these individual small steps are all important for the
conservation of species and ultimately biodiversity there are much larger social issues to
address at the base of the pyramid that is our impact as Homo maybe not so sapiens on the
planet. As a species our lifestyle disrespects the interconnecting fabric of our global ecology
at a multitude of levels. It becomes a psychological issue to the point where we are not even
aware of the impact of many actions or worse yet when we realize them yet decide
consciously to look away. Whether it be our destruction of habitats to ensure we get our
consumer goods, the energy we consume, the release of pollutants into every corner of the
globe, all of our actions have ecological consequences. Only in recent years are we gaining as
a population a conscience on our role in protecting the environment from the damage of our
activities. Yet in a large measure be it price or convenience we still often opt for the wrong
choices. To a great extent governments should be enforcing more policies to ensure
responsible growth and promote environmentally friendly industries but it is up to the citizens
to pressure and demand these changes where without them money is the greatest moving
force behind any industry. Consumers ultimately have the power in choosing where their
capital goes and to whom the profits are given. This whole topic though is a whole other
world of discussion into which I don’t have the time to expand into in this essay.
As a last footnote I recently came across a news article with the following
shocking/alarming infographics. Not even taking into regard the incredible environmental
impact that our meat production industry produces, the simple fact that we humans now
constitute 36% of mammals, with another 60% being our livestock, leaving only a mere 4%
to wild mammals, and that 7/10 birds are poultry. It is simply mind-blowing to believe and
can surely lead to some introspection.
Bibliographical References

Techincal Bulletin: Control of Gastro-Intestinal Nematode Parasites of Hoofed Wildlife in North


America, Donald H. Bliss

Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 2012 Volume 43, Nyeema. C. Harris and
Robert. R. Dunn

New Phytologyst, Volume 198, Issue 2, April 2013: Cospeciation vs host-shift speculation; methods
for testing, evidence from natural associations and relation to coevolution – Refrégier et al.

Proceedings of the Royal Society, Volume 280, Issue 1771, November 2013: Species loss on spatial
patterns and composition of zoonotic parasites, Nyeema. C. Harris and Robert. R. Dunn

Parasite load and disease in wild animals: Georgia Ray

International Journal for Parasitology: Parasites and Wildlife, Vol 2, December 2015, 5 pages:

Neglected wild life: Parasitic biodiversity as a conservation target: Gómez et al.

Quercus Marzo 2015: Crónica de la reintroducción del Ibis eremita en Andalucía, Iñigo Sánchez

Journal of Parasitology Research Volume 2012, Article ID 296475, 8 pages: Detection of Parasites
and Parasitic Infections of Free-Ranging Wildlife on a Game Ranch in Zambia: A Challenge for
Disease Control

BioScience Vol. 64 No. 10 October 2014 6 pages: Everything in Moderation: Principles of Parasite
Control for Wildlife Conservation ANDREW PAUL STRINGER AND WAYNE LINKLATER
Host-Parasite Interactions and Population Dynamics of Rock Ptarmigan: Stenkewitz et al.
Game & Hunt, May 2015, 2 pages, Johan Kriek: Breeding disease-free buffalo

Journal of Wildlife Management Vol. 82, 14 pages: Special Section on Mountain Sheep Management
Pneumonia in Bighorn Sheep: Risk and Resilience, Cassirer et al.

Conservation Biology Vol 20: Evidence for the Role of Infectious Disease in Species Extinction and
Endangerment - Katherine F. Smith et al.

http://pearl.berkeley.edu/ : PARASITE EXTINCTION ASSESSMENT AND RED LIST

http://www.abc.es/natural/biodiversidad/abci-miguel-angel-simon-esperamos-contabilizar-540-linces-
peninsula-2018-201801121116_noticia.html

http://www.iberlinx.com/esp/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=55:a-leucemia-felina-
como-ameaca-para-o-lince-iberico&catid=6:artigo&Itemid=9

http://www.midamericaagresearch.net/documents/WIldlife%20Monograph.pdf

http://www.iucnredlist.org/initiatives/amphibians/analysis/major-threats
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/21/human-race-just-001-of-all-life-but-has-
destroyed-over-80-of-wild-mammals-study

S-ar putea să vă placă și