Geology ReportsSearch

Geology topics

Jonathan M. Sleeman

Publications and source records attributed to Jonathan M. Sleeman.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

Quarterly wildlife mortality report July 2020

The USGS National Wildlife Health Center (NWHC) Quarterly Mortality Report provides brief summaries of epizootic mortality and morbidity events by quarter. The write-ups, highlighting epizootic events and other wildlife disease topics of interest, are published in the Wildlife Disease Association quarterly newsletter. A link is provided in this WDA newsletter to the Wildlife Health Information Sharing Partnership event reporting system (WHISPers) so readers can view associated data.

Wildlife Disease Association Newsletter

Response to “Prepublication communication of research results”: The need for a coordinated wildlife disease surveillance laboratory network

In “Prepublication Communication of Research Results”, Adams et al. ( 2018 ) outline the importance of timeliness in providing scientific results with consequential implications for wildlife management to responsible government agencies. The authors discuss various impediments to sharing of scientific results and provide well-reasoned arguments why scientists should not fear that sharing these results with wildlife management agencies will preclude their ability to subsequently publish this information in the peer-reviewed literature.

EcoHealth

Proposed attributes of national wildlife health programmes

Wildlife health is important for conservation, healthy ecosystems, sustainable development, and biosecurity. It presents unique challenges for national programme governance and delivery because wildlife health crosses not only jurisdictional responsibilities and authorities but also inherently spans multiple sectors of expertise. The World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) encourages its Members to have wildlife disease monitoring and notification systems. Where national wildlife health surveillance programmes do exist, they vary in scope and size. Evidence-based guidance is lacking on the critical functions and roles needed to meet the OIE’s recommendations and other expectations of a national programme. A literature review and consultation with national wildlife health programme leaders identified five key attributes of national programmes including: (1) being knowledge and science based; (2) fostering cross-nation equivalence and harmonisation; (3) developing partnerships and national coordination; (4) providing leadership and administration of national efforts and (5) capacity development. Proposed core purposes include: (1) establishing and communication of the national wildlife health status; (2) leading national planning; (3) centralising information and expertise; (4) developing national networks leading to harmonisation and collaborations; (5) developing wildlife health workforces and (6) centralising administration and management of national programmes. A national wildlife health programme should aim to identify, effectively communicate, and manage the risk to or from a country’s wildlife populations. It should generate the appropriate knowledge required to improve the effectiveness of wildlife policies and systems, including identifyinhttp://www.oie.int/en/publications-and-documentation/scientific-and-technical-review-free-access/peer-reviewed-papers-for-the-plurithematic-review-2018/g and assessing emerging priorities, thus increasing warning for preparedness and preventive actions.

Scientific and Technical Review

One Health: A perspective from wildlife and environmental health sectors

Loss of biodiversity, habitat fragmentation and pollution, and subsequent degradation of natural environments threaten the range of ecosystem services that support all life on this planet. These changes, among others, are also driving the emergence of infectious diseases, with negative health outcomes for humans, animals, and our shared environment. Historically, interventions aimed at human and agricultural health issues did not always integrate wildlife or environmental health as part of the solution, which has resulted in unintended consequences. One Health recognises the interdependence of humans, animals and their shared environment, and provides a conceptual framework for developing interventions that optimise outcomes for human, animal and environmental health. However, there is a need to clearly articulate the core values, goals, and objectives of One Health for all relevant sectors in order to maximise synergies for communication, coordination, collaboration, and, ultimately, for joint actions on disease control and prevention. Application of systems and harm reduction approaches, focusing on the socio-economic and environmental determinants of health, and ensuring good governance and effective leadership will also maximise the opportunities to develop ‘win-win-win’ solutions to global health and environmental challenges. These solutions would help propel One Health forward to reach its full potential and truly optimise health outcomes for all.

Scientific and Technical Review

Semi-quantitative assessment of disease risks at the human, livestock, wildlife interface for the Republic of Korea using a nationwide survey of experts: A model for other countries

Wildlife-associated diseases and pathogens have increased in importance; however, management of a large number of diseases and diversity of hosts is prohibitively expensive. Thus, the determination of priority wildlife pathogens and risk factors for disease emergence is warranted. We used an online questionnaire survey to assess release and exposure risks, and consequences of wildlife-associated diseases and pathogens in the Republic of Korea (ROK). We also surveyed opinions on pathways for disease exposure, and risk factors for disease emergence and spread. For the assessment of risk, we employed a two-tiered, statistical K -means clustering algorithm to group diseases into three levels (high, medium and low) of perceived risk based on release and exposure risks, societal consequences and the level of uncertainty of the experts’ opinions. To examine the experts’ perceived risk of routes of introduction of pathogens and disease amplification and spread, we used a Bayesian, multivariate normal order-statistics model. Six diseases or pathogens, including four livestock and two wildlife diseases, were identified as having high risk with low uncertainty. Similarly, 13 diseases were characterized as having high risk with medium uncertainty with three of these attributed to livestock, six associated with human disease, and the remainder having the potential to affect human, livestock and wildlife (i.e., One Health). Lastly, four diseases were described as high risk with high certainty, and were associated solely with fish diseases. Experts identified migration of wildlife, international human movement and illegal importation of wildlife as the three routes posing the greatest risk of pathogen introduction into ROK. Proximity of humans, livestock and wildlife was the most significant risk factor for promoting the spread of wildlife-associated diseases and pathogens, followed by high density of livestock populations, habitat loss and environmental degradation, and climate change. This study provides useful information to decision makers responsible for allocating resources to address disease risks. This approach provided a rapid, cost-effective method of risk assessment of wildlife-associated diseases and pathogens for which the published literature is sparse.

Transboundary and Emerging Diseases

Report of the workshop on evidence-based design of national wildlife health programs

Summary This report summarizes a Wildlife Disease Association sponsored workshop held in 2016. The overall objective of the workshop was to use available evidence and selected subject matter expertise to define the essential functions of a National Wildlife Health Program and the resources needed to deliver a robust and reliable program, including the basic infrastructure, workforce, data and information systems, governance, organizational capacity, and essential features, such as wildlife disease surveillance, diagnostic services, and epidemiological investigation. This workshop also provided the means to begin the process of defining the essential attributes of a national wildlife health program that could be scalable and adaptable to each nation’s needs.

Open-File Report

Identification of two novel reassortant avian influenza a (H5N6) viruses in whooper swans in Korea, 2016

Background On November 20, 2016 two novel strains of H5N6 highly pathogenic avian influenza virus (HPAIVs) were isolated from three whooper swans ( Cygnus cygnus ) at Gangjin Bay in South Jeolla province, South Korea. Identification of HPAIVs in wild birds is significant as there is a potential risk of transmission of these viruses to poultry and humans. Results Phylogenetic analysis revealed that Gangjin H5N6 viruses classified into Asian H5 clade 2.3.4.4 lineage and were distinguishable from H5N8 and H5N1 HPAIVs previously isolated in Korea. With the exception of the polymerase acidic (PA) gene, the viruses were most closely related to A/duck/Guangdong/01.01SZSGXJK005-Y/2016 (H5N6) (98.90 ~ 99.74%). The PA genes of the two novel Gangjin H5N6 viruses were most closely related to AIV isolates previously characterized from Korea, A/hooded crane/Korea/1176/2016 (H1N1) (99.16%) and A/environment/Korea/W133/2006 (H7N7) (98.65%). The lack of more recent viruses to A/environment/Korea/W133/2006 (H7N7) indicates the need for analysis of recent wild bird AIVs isolated in Korea because they might provide further clues as to the origin of these novel reassortant H5N6 viruses. Conclusions Although research on the origins and epidemiology of these infections is ongoing, the most likely route of infection for the whooper swans was through direct or indirect contact with reassortant viruses shed by migratory wild birds in Korea. As H5N6 HPAIVs can potentially be transmitted to poultry and humans, continuous monitoring of AIVs among wild birds will help to mitigate this risk.

Virology Journal

The USGS National Wildlife Health Center: Advancing wildlife and ecosystem health

In 1975, the Federal government responded to the need for establishing national expertise in wildlife health by creating the National Wildlife Health Center (NWHC), a facility within the Department of the Interior; the NWHC is the only national center dedicated to wildlife disease detection, control, and prevention. Its mission is to provide national leadership to safeguard wildlife and ecosystem health through active partnerships and exceptional science. Comparisons are often made between the NWHC, which strives to protect the health of our Nation’s wildlife, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which strive to protect public health. The NWHC, a science center of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) with specialized laboratories, works to safeguard the Nation’s wildlife from diseases by studying the causes and drivers of these threats, and by developing strategies to prevent and manage them. In addition to the main campus, located in Madison, Wisconsin, the NWHC also operates the Honolulu Field Station that addresses wildlife health issues in Hawaii and the Pacific Region.

Fact Sheet

Optimization of human, animal, and environmental health by using the One Health approach

Emerging diseases are increasing burdens on public health, negatively affecting the world economy, causing extinction of species, and disrupting ecological integrity. One Health recognizes that human, domestic animal, and wildlife health are interconnected within ecosystem health and provides a framework for the development of multidisciplinary solutions to global health challenges. To date, most health-promoting interventions have focused largely on single-sector outcomes. For example, risk for transmission of zoonotic pathogens from bush-meat hunting is primarily focused on human hygiene and personal protection. However, bush-meat hunting is a complex issue promoting the need for holistic strategies to reduce transmission of zoonotic disease while addressing food security and wildlife conservation issues. Temporal and spatial separation of humans and wildlife, risk communication, and other preventative strategies should allow wildlife and humans to co-exist. Upstream surveillance, vaccination, and other tools to prevent pathogen spillover are also needed. Clear multi-sector outcomes should be defined, and a systems-based approach is needed to develop interventions that reduce risks and balance the needs of humans, wildlife, and the environment. The ultimate goal is long-term action to reduce forces driving emerging diseases and provide interdisciplinary scientific approaches to management of risks, thereby achieving optimal outcomes for human, animal, and environmental health.

Journal of Veterinary Science

Retrospective analysis of the epidemiologic literature, 1990–2015, on wildlife-associated diseases from the Republic of Korea

To assess the status of research on wildlife diseases in the Republic of Korea (ROK) and to identify trends, knowledge gaps, and directions for future research, we reviewed epidemiologic publications on wildlife-associated diseases in the ROK. We identified a relatively small but rapidly increasing body of literature. The majority of publications were focused on public or livestock health and relatively few addressed wildlife health. Most studies that focused on human and livestock health were cross-sectional whereas wildlife health studies were mostly case reports. Fifteen diseases notifiable to the World Organisation for Animal Health were identified and 21 diseases were identified as notifiable to either the Korean Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Family Affairs or the Korean Ministry of Agriculture. Two diseases were reported as occurring as epidemics; highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) and virulent Newcastle disease. Six diseases or disease agents were described in the literature as emerging including HPAI, rabies, Babesia microti , avian coronaviruses, scrub typhus, and severe fever thrombocytopenia syndrome virus. The diseases for which there were the largest number of publications were HPAI and rabies. The majority of wildlife-associated zoonotic disease publications focused on food-borne parasitic infections or rodent-associated diseases. Several publications focused on the potential of wildlife as reservoirs of livestock diseases; in particular, water deer ( Hydropotes inermis ) and wild boar ( Sus scrofa ). In contrast, there were few publications on diseases of concern for wildlife populations or research to understand the impacts of these diseases for wildlife management. Increased focus on prospective studies would enhance understanding of disease dynamics in wildlife populations. For the high-consequence diseases that impact multiple sectors, a One Health approach, with coordination among the public health, agricultural, and environmental sectors, would be important. This type of review can provide useful information for countries or regions planning or implementing national wildlife health programs.

Journal of Wildlife Diseases

U.S. Geological Survey science strategy for highly pathogenic avian influenza in wildlife and the environment (2016–2020)

Introduction Through the Science Strategy for Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) in Wildlife and the Environment, the USGS will assess avian influenza (AI) dynamics in an ecological context to inform decisions made by resource managers and policymakers from the local to national level. Through collection of unbiased scientific information on the ecology of AI viruses and wildlife hosts in a changing world, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) will enhance the development of AI forecasting tools and ensure this information is integrated with a quality decision process for managing HPAI. The overall goal of this USGS Science Strategy for HPAI in Wildlife and the Environment goes beyond document­ing the occurrence and distribution of AI viruses in wild birds. The USGS aims to understand the epidemiological processes and environmental factors that influence HPAI distribution and describe the mechanisms of transmission between wild birds and poultry. USGS scientists developed a conceptual model describing the process linking HPAI dispersal in wild waterfowl to the outbreaks in poul­try. This strategy focuses on five long-term science goals, which include: Science Goal 1—Augment the National HPAI Surveillance Plan; Science Goal 2—Determine mechanisms of HPAI disease spread in wildlife and the environment; Science Goal 3—Characterize HPAI viruses circulating in wildlife; Science Goal 4—Understand implications of avian ecol­ogy on HPAI spread; and Science Goal 5—Develop HPAI forecasting and decision-making tools. These goals will help define and describe the processes outlined in the conceptual model with the ultimate goal of facilitating biosecurity and minimizing transfer of diseases across the wildlife-poultry interface. The first four science goals are focused on scientific discovery and the fifth goal is application-based. Decision analyses in the fifth goal will guide prioritization of proposed actions in the first four goals.

Open-File Report

Widespread detection of highly pathogenic H5 influenza viruses in wild birds from the Pacific Flyway of the United States

A novel highly pathogenic avian influenza virus belonging to the H5 clade 2.3.4.4 variant viruses was detected in North America in late 2014. Motivated by the identification of these viruses in domestic poultry in Canada, an intensive study was initiated to conduct highly pathogenic avian influenza surveillance in wild birds in the Pacific Flyway of the United States. A total of 4,729 hunter-harvested wild birds were sampled and highly pathogenic avian influenza virus was detected in 1.3% (n = 63). Three H5 clade 2.3.4.4 subtypes were isolated from wild birds, H5N2, H5N8, and H5N1, representing the wholly Eurasian lineage H5N8 and two novel reassortant viruses. Testing of 150 additional wild birds during avian morbidity and mortality investigations in Washington yielded 10 (6.7%) additional highly pathogenic avian influenza isolates (H5N8 = 3 and H5N2 = 7). The geographically widespread detection of these viruses in apparently healthy wild waterfowl suggest that the H5 clade 2.3.4.4 variant viruses may behave similarly in this taxonomic group whereby many waterfowl species are susceptible to infection but do not demonstrate obvious clinical disease. Despite these findings in wild waterfowl, mortality has been documented for some wild bird species and losses in US domestic poultry during the first half of 2015 were unprecedented.

Pacific Flyway

High rates of detection of Clade 2.3.4.4 Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5 viruses in wild birds in the Pacific Northwest during the winter of 2014-2015

In 2014, Clade 2.3.4.4 H5N8 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) viruses spread across the Republic of Korea and ultimately were reported in China, Japan, Russia and Europe. Mortality associated with a reassortant HPAI H5N2 virus was detected in poultry farms in Western Canada at the end of November. The same strain (with identical genetic structure) was then detected in free-living wild birds that had died prior to December 8 of unrelated causes in Whatcom County, Washington, USA in an area contiguous with the index Canadian location. A gyrfalcon (Falco rusticolus) that had hunted and fed on an American wigeon (Anas americana) on December 6 in the same area and died two days later, tested positive for the Eurasian origin HPAI H5N8. Subsequently, an Active Surveillance Program using hunter-harvest waterfowl in Washington and Oregon detected ten HPAI H5 viruses, of three different subtypes (four H5N2, three H5N8 and three H5N1) with 4 segments in common (HA, PB2, NP and MA). In addition, a mortality-based Passive Surveillance Program detected 18 HPAI (14 H5N2 and four H5N8) cases from Idaho, Kansas, Oregon, Minnesota, Montana, Washington and Wisconsin. Comparatively, mortality-based passive surveillance appears to be detecting these HPAI infections at a higher rate than active surveillance during the period following initial introduction into the US.

Avian Diseases

USGS role and response to highly pathogenic avian influenza

Avian influenza viruses are naturally occurring in wild birds such as ducks, geese, swans, and gulls. These viruses generally do not cause illness in wild birds, however, when spread to poultry they can be highly pathogenic and cause illness and death in backyard and commercial farms. Outbreaks may cause devastating agricultural economic losses and some viral strains have the potential to infect people directly. Furthermore, the combination of avian influenza viruses with mammalian viruses can result in strains with the ability to transmit from person to person, possibly leading to viruses with pandemic potential. All known pandemic influenza viruses have had some genetic material of avian origin. Since 1996, a strain of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus, H5N1, has caused infection in wild birds, losses to poultry farms in Eurasia and North Africa, and led to the deaths of several hundred people. Spread of the H5N1 virus and other influenza strains from China was likely facilitated by migratory birds. In December 2014, HPAI was detected in poultry in Canada and migratory birds in the United States. Since then, HPAI viruses have spread to large parts of the United States and will likely continue to spread through migratory bird flyways and other mechanisms throughout North America. In the United States, HPAI viruses have severely affected the poultry industry with millions of domestic birds dead or culled. These strains of HPAI are not known to cause disease in humans; however, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advise caution when in close contact with infected birds. Experts agree that HPAI strains currently circulating in wild birds of North America will likely persist for the next few years. This unprecedented situation presents risks to the poultry industry, natural resource management, and potentially human health. Scientific knowledge and decision support tools are urgently needed to understand factors affecting the persistence of HPAI in wild birds, to forecast future spread of HPAI by wild birds, and to detect novel strains of HPAI that may emerge.

Fact Sheet

USGS highly pathogenic avian influenza research strategy

Avian influenza viruses are naturally occurring in wild birds such as ducks, geese, swans, and gulls. These viruses generally do not cause illness in wild birds, however, when spread to poultry they can be highly pathogenic and cause illness and death in backyard and commercial farms. Outbreaks may cause devastating agricultural economic losses and some viral strains have the potential to infect people directly. Furthermore, the combination of avian influenza viruses with mammalian viruses can result in strains with the ability to transmit from person to person, possibly leading to viruses with pandemic potential. All known pandemic influenza viruses have had some genetic material of avian origin. Since 1996, a strain of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus, H5N1, has caused infection in wild birds, losses to poultry farms in Eurasia and North Africa, and led to the deaths of several hundred people. Spread of the H5N1 virus and other influenza strains from China was likely facilitated by migratory birds. In December 2014, HPAI was detected in poultry in Canada and migratory birds in the United States. Since then, HPAI viruses have spread to large parts of the United States and will likely continue to spread through migratory bird flyways and other mechanisms throughout North America. In the United States, HPAI viruses have severely affected the poultry industry with millions of domestic birds dead or culled. These strains of HPAI are not known to cause disease in humans; however, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advise caution when in close contact with infected birds. Experts agree that HPAI strains currently circulating in wild birds of North America will likely persist for the next few years. This unprecedented situation presents risks to the poultry industry, natural resource management, and potentially human health. Scientific knowledge and decision support tools are urgently needed to understand factors affecting the persistence of HPAI in wild birds, to forecast future spread of HPAI by wild birds, and to detect novel strains of HPAI that may emerge.

Fact Sheet

Global trends in emerging viral diseases of wildlife origin

Fifty years ago, infectious diseases were rarely considered threats to wildlife populations, and the study of wildlife diseases was largely a neglected endeavor. Furthermore, public health leaders at that time had declared that “it is time to close the book on infectious diseases and the war against pestilence won,” a quote attributed to Dr. William H. Stewart in 1967. There is some debate whether he actually said these words; however, they reflect the widespread belief at that time (Spellberg, 2008). Leap forward to today, and the book on infectious diseases has been dusted off. There is general consensus that the global environment favors the emergence of infectious diseases, and in particular, diseases of wildlife origin (Taylor et al., 2001). Examples of drivers of these infectious diseases include climate and landscape changes, human demographic and behavior changes, global travel and trade, microbial adaptation, and lack of appropriate infrastructure for wildlife disease control and prevention (Daszak et al., 2001). The consequences of these emerging diseases are global and profound with increased burden on the public health system, negative impacts on the global economy and food security, declines and extinctions of wildlife species, and subsequent loss of ecosystem integrity. For example, 35 million people are currently living with HIV infection globally (http://www.who.int/gho/hiv/en); 400 million poultry have been culled since 2003 as a result of efforts to control highly pathogenic H5N1 avian influenza (http://www.fao.org/avianflu/en/index.html), and there are increasing biological and ecological consequences. Examples of health threats to biodiversity include the “spillover” of human diseases to great ape populations (Köndgen et al., 2008), the near-extirpation of the black-footed ferret from canine distemper and sylvatic plague (for a review see Abbott et al., 2012), and threats to Hawaiian forest birds from introduced pathogens such as avian malaria and avian pox (van Riper et al., 1986, 2002). There are also newly discovered pathogens or diseases that have resulted in population declines, and global extinctions of several species. Examples include Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, which causes a cutaneous fungal infection of amphibians and is linked to declines of amphibians globally (Kriger and Hero, 2009); and recently discovered Pseudogymnoascus (Geomyces) destructans, the etiologic agent of white-nose syndrome (WNS), which has caused precipitous declines of North American bat species (Blehert et al., 2009). Furthermore, there is increasing evidence of the subsequent impacts on human and ecosystem health; for example, increasing risk of exposure to Lyme disease as a consequence of decreased biodiversity (LoGiudice et al., 2003) as well as the economic cost of the loss of bats due to decreased insect control services (Boyles et al., 2011). Figure A12-1 is a timeline of important diseases investigated by the U.S. Geological Survey since the 1970s, which illustrates three factors: 1. The unprecedented emergence of new pathogens and geographic spread of known pathogens since the 1990s; 2. Diseases are increasingly causing large-scale, negative impacts on wildlife populations and spreading over larger geographic areas rather than remaining localized; and 3. Diseases are increasingly of concern for multiple sectors, including public health, agriculture and wildlife management agencies. Of increasing concern are these novel diseases such as WNS as they are hard to anticipate, particularly devastating to human health or wildlife populations, challenging to manage, spread over large geographic areas in short time periods, and may result in ecological ripple effects that are difficult to predict. The following article provides examples of recently emerged viral diseases of wildlife origin. The examples have been selected to illustrate the drivers of emerging viral diseases, both novel pathogens and previously known diseases, the impacts of these diseases, as well as the role of wildlife both as “villains” or reservoirs as well as “victims” of these viral diseases. The article also discusses potential management strategies for emerging viral diseases in wildlife populations and future science directions in wildlife health to prevent, prepare, respond to, and recover from these disease events. Finally, the concept of One Health and its potential role in developing solutions to these issues of mutual concern is discussed.

Conference Paper

Great Apes

Anesthesia of great apes is often necessary to conduct diagnostic analysis, provide therapeutics, facilitate surgical procedures, and enable transport and translocation for conservation purposes. Due to the stress of remote delivery injection of anesthetic agents, recent studies have focused on oral delivery and/or transmucosal absorption of preanesthetic and anesthetic agents. Maintenance of the airway and provision of oxygen is an important aspect of anesthesia in great ape species. The provision of analgesia is an important aspect of the anesthesia protocol for any procedure involving painful stimuli. Opioids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are often administered alone, or in combination to provide multi-modal analgesia. There is increasing conservation management of in situ great ape populations, which has resulted in the development of field anesthesia techniques for free-living great apes for the purposes of translocation, reintroduction into the wild, and clinical interventions.

Book chapter