Contact rates of wild-living and domestic dog populations in Australia: a new approach

Title
Contact rates of wild-living and domestic dog populations in Australia: a new approach
Publication Date
2016-12
Author(s)
Sparkes, Jessica
Ballard, Guy
( author )
OrcID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0287-9720
Email: gballar3@une.edu.au
UNE Id une-id:gballar3
Fleming, Peter J S
van de Ven, Remy
Koertner, Gerhard
( author )
OrcID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8230-0709
Email: gkoertne@une.edu.au
UNE Id une-id:gkoertne
Type of document
Journal Article
Language
en
Entity Type
Publication
Publisher
Springer
Place of publication
Germany
DOI
10.1007/s00442-016-3720-4
UNE publication id
une:1959.11/51897
Abstract

Dogs (Canis familiaris) can transmit pathogens to other domestic animals, humans and wildlife. Both domestic and wild-living dogs are ubiquitous within mainland Australian landscapes, but their interactions are mostly unquantified. Consequently, the probability of pathogen transfer among wild-living and domestic dogs is unknown. To address this knowledge deficit, we established 65 camera trap stations, deployed for 26,151 camera trap nights, to quantify domestic and wild-living dog activity during 2 years across eight sites in north-east New South Wales, Australia. Wild-living dogs were detected on camera traps at all sites, and domestic dogs recorded at all but one. No contacts between domestic and wild-living dogs were recorded, and limited temporal overlap in activity was observed (32 %); domestic dogs were predominantly active during the day and wild-living dogs mainly during the night. Contact rates between wild-living and between domestic dogs, respectively, varied between sites and over time (range 0.003-0.56 contacts per camera trap night). Contact among wild-living dogs occurred mainly within social groupings, and peaked when young were present. However, pup emergence occurred throughout the year within and between sites and consequently, no overall annual cycle in contact rates could be established. Due to infrequent interactions between domestic and wild-living dogs, there are likely limited opportunities for pathogen transmission that require direct contact. In contrast, extensive spatial overlap of wild and domestic dogs could facilitate the spread of pathogens that do not require direct contact, some of which may be important zoonoses.

Link
Citation
Oecologia, 182(4), p. 1007-1018
ISSN
1432-1939
0029-8549
Pubmed ID
27660202
Start page
1007
End page
1018

Files:

NameSizeformatDescriptionLink