Search

As urbanization expands globally, human–wildlife interactions will inevitably increase. Here, we analysed 10 years of wildlife rehabilitation records of squamate (snake and lizard) reptiles (n = 37 075) from the Greater Sydney region, New South Wales, Australia, to explore their value to address management and conservation issues. Rescues were highly non-random regarding taxonomic focus, spatial occurrences and temporal trends due to the combined influence of (i) reptile phenology and behaviour and (ii) human perceptions of reptiles. Seasonal peaks in rescues reflect reptile and, to a lesser extent, human activity. Spatial patterns of rescues were informative about distributions and presence of easily identified taxa but were primarily driven by human presence. Larger squamate species were rescued more frequently, potentially reflecting a perception of greater danger or rescue priority. While uncommon species were often misidentified, accurate reports of these taxa may guide targeted surveys. The value of these data for conservation and management could be enhanced by emphasizing reptile identification training of volunteers and use of applications for informed species identification. Wildlife rehabilitation data offer a cost-effective means of quantifying thousands of human–reptile interactions, identifying foci (in both time and space) of human–wildlife conflict such as snakebite risk and roadkill-related reptile mortality.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0001526.].

Abstract Wildlife rehabilitation is a critical part of animal welfare that contributes to species conservation. Despite the resources that go into rehabilitation, how animals fare after release from care is unknown. This is particularly true for cryptic arboreal species where specialist diets in care and low detectability in the wild present challenges for both care and post-release monitoring. We evaluated post-release outcomes for koalas and assessed if koalas were fed appropriately while in care. We monitored 36 koalas that had experienced one of three categories of medical intervention (none, minor, major) during rehabilitation. We examined the drivers of (i) koala survival and (ii) movements post-release, and (iii) evaluated variation between the species of browse fed in care versus browse selected by koalas in-situ. Overall, the post release survival rate of koalas was 58.5%, with only koalas that received medical intervention experiencing mortality. A critical threshold for mortality occurred at two weeks post-release and mortality was related to the measurable indicators of low body condition and poor climbing ability at time of release. In the month following their release, animals translocated furthest from their capture point moved the furthest. There was poor overlap between the tree species that koalas were fed in care and those they utilized post-release. We provide recommendations to address critical gaps in rehabilitation practices, as well as priorities for monitoring animals post-release to improve outcomes for arboreal folivores.

The 2019–2020 Australian bushfire season had a devastating impact on native wildlife. It was estimated that 3 billion native animals were impacted by the fires, yet there are few estimates of the number of animals that were rescued and rehabilitated post-fire. Focusing on the state of New South Wales (NSW) and Kangaroo Island, South Australia, we used a case study approach to determine the number of marsupials that were reported rescued due to the 2019–2020 bushfires in these areas and analysed species-specific trends in rescue and release success. In NSW, we found 889 reports of fire-affected marsupials in 2019–2020, mostly comprising kangaroos and wallabies (macropods; n = 458), koalas (n = 204), and possums (n = 162), with a smaller number of wombats (n = 43) and other marsupial species. Most reports of fire-affected marsupials occurred 6–8 weeks after fire ignition, and there was no difference in temporal frequency of rescues between marsupial groups. For the three main groups, the probability of survival and subsequent release differed, with macropods having the lowest probability of release after rescue (0.15 ± 0.04) compared to koalas (0.47 ± 0.04) and possums (0.55 ± 0.10). The type of injury was the main predictor of survival during rehabilitation for all three marsupial groups, with those malnourished/moribund or with traumatic injuries less likely to survive rehabilitation. Death or euthanasia occurred on the day of rescue for 77% of macropods, 48% of possums and 15% of koalas. Koalas most often died during rehabilitation rather than on the day of rescue, with 73% either dying or being euthanised between day 1 and 30 post-rescue, representing a potential welfare concern. On Kangaroo Island, koalas were the most frequently rescued marsupial species; most euthanasia cases and deaths occurred in a hospital, whereas other marsupials were mostly euthanised at triage. In both jurisdictions, koalas were over-represented while possums were under-represented relative to baseline population densities and wildlife rescue trends in the years before the 2019–2020 bushfires. These species differences in presentation post-fire warrant further investigation, as do the differences in triage, survival and release outcomes. It is hypothesised that the high intensity and large scale of the 2019–2020 fires impeded marsupial fire evasion tactics, as evidenced by the small number of animals found for rescue, and the differing rates of presentation relative to underlying population densities for the main marsupial groups. Based on our findings, there is a need for detailed record keeping and data sharing, development of consistent and evidence-based triage, treatment and euthanasia guidelines and deployment of trained wildlife emergency rescue teams with advanced search techniques to minimise animal suffering where safe to do so.

BackgroundWhy do some zoonotic diseases receive priority from health policy decision-makers and planners whereas others receive little attention? By leveraging Shiffman and Smith’s political prioritisation framework, our paper advances a political economy of disease prioritisation focusing on four key components: the strength of the actors involved in the prioritisation, the power of the ideas they use to portray the issue, the political contexts in which they operate, and the characteristics of the issue itself (e.g., overall burdens, severity, cost-effective interventions). These components afford a nuanced characterisation of how zoonotic diseases are prioritised for intervention and highlight the associated knowledge gaps affecting prioritisation outcomes. We apply this framework to the case of zoonoses management in India, specifically to identify the factors that shape disease prioritisation decision-making and outcomes.MethodsWe conducted 26 semi-structured interviews with national, state and district level health policymakers, disease managers and technical experts involved in disease surveillance and control in India.ResultsOur results show pluralistic interpretation of risks, exemplified by a disconnect between state and district level actors on priority diseases. The main factors identified as shaping prioritisation outcomes were related to the nature of the zoonoses problem (the complexity of the zoonotic disease, insufficient awareness and lack of evidence on disease burdens and impacts) as well as political, social, cultural and institutional environments (isolated departmental priorities, limited institutional authority, opaque funding mechanisms), and challenges in organisation leadership for cross-sectoral engagement.ConclusionThe findings highlight a compartmentalised regulatory system for zoonoses where political, social, cultural, and media factors can influence disease management and prioritisation. A major policy window is the institutionalisation of One Health to increase the political priority for strengthening cross-sectoral engagement to address several challenges, including the creation of effective institutions to reconcile stakeholder priorities and prioritisation processes.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is an economic, food security, and global health threat accelerated by a multitude of factors including the overuse and misuse of antimicrobials in the human health, animal health, and agriculture sectors. Given the rapid emergence and spread of AMR and the relative lack of development of new antimicrobials or alternative therapies, there is a need to develop and implement non-pharmaceutical AMR mitigation policies and interventions that improve antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) practices across all sectors where antimicrobials are used. We conducted a systematic literature review per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to identify peer-reviewed studies that described behavior-change interventions that aimed to improve AMS and/or reduce inappropriate antimicrobial use (AMU) among human health, animal health, and livestock agriculture stakeholders. We identified 301 total publications- 11 in the animal health sector and 290 in the human health sector-and assessed described interventions using metrics across five thematic areas- (1) AMU, (2) adherence to clinical guidelines, (3) AMS, (4) AMR, and (5) clinical outcomes. The lack of studies describing the animal health sector precluded a meta-analysis. Variation across intervention type, study type, and outcome precluded a meta-analysis for studies describing the human health sector; however, a summary descriptive analysis was conducted. Among studies in the human health sector, 35.7% reported significant (p

Standard treatment guidelines (STGs) are an important tool for ensuring high quality clinical care and prudent antimicrobial use (AMU) and stewardship (AMS). In 2018, African Union (AU) member state representatives recognized the lack of STGs as a barrier to AMS at national and facility levels. Previous research reported that only 17 of 55 (31%) member states had STGs that provided disease- or pathogen-specific antimicrobial treatment recommendations, excluding those that covered only treatment of HIV, malaria, and tuberculosis). The Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention convened expert panels to develop first edition antibiotic treatment guidelines for priority infectious diseases and clinical syndromes for pediatric and adult patient populations in Africa. The purpose of the guidelines is to provide healthcare workers with treatment guidance by harmonising existing national STGs, filling gaps where existing STGs are not available, and serving as a model for future guidelines. Two expert panels of 28 total clinicians, pharmacists, and other relevant stakeholders from 14 AU member states representing each continental region convened to develop consensus treatment recommendations for select priority bacterial infections and clinical syndromes. In developing recommendations, the panels considered treatment recommendations from existing STGs, drug availability, clinical experience, and available antimicrobial resistance data. The guidelines underwent an external review process where clinical stakeholders who did not serve on either panel were invited to submit feedback prior to their publication. The guidelines provide empiric antibiotic therapy guidelines – including drug selection, route of administration, formulation, dosage, and therapy duration – and principles of stewardship for 28 bacterial infections or clinical syndromes. The first edition guidelines for the treatment of common infectious diseases and clinical syndromes in Africa aims to improve clinical treatment and antimicrobial stewardship and will serve as a template for future regional guidelines.