bioRxivZoology
Analysis of a European general wildlife health surveillance program: chances, challenges and recommendations
E. Heiderich, S. A. Keller, P. Mirjam, F. C. Origgi, S. Zuercher-Giovanni, S. Borel, I. Marti, S. R. R. Pisano, B. Friker, I. Adrian-Kalchhauser, M.-P. Ryser-Degiorgis
Abstract
In the context of a One Health perspective general wildlife health surveillance (GWHS) gains importance worldwide, as pathogen transmission among wildlife, domestic animals and humans raises health, conservation and economic concerns. However, GWHS programs operate in the face of legal, geographical, financial, or administrative conditions. The present study uses a multi-tiered approach to understand the current characteristics, strengths and gaps of a European GWHS that operates in a fragmented legislative and multi-stakeholder environment. The aim is to support the implementation or improvement of other GWHS systems by managers, surveillance experts, and administrations. To assess the current state of wildlife health investigations and trends within the GWHS, we analyzed 20 years of wildlife diagnostic data, conducted an online survey and phone interviews with official field partners (hunting administrators, game wardens and hunters), and performed a time-per-task analysis. Firstly, we found that infectious disease dynamics, the level of public awareness for specific diseases, research activities and increasing population sizes of in depth-monitored protected species, together with biogeographical and political boundaries all impacted case numbers and can present unexpected challenges to a GWHS. Secondly, we found that even a seemingly comprehensive GWHS can feature pronounced information gaps, with underrepresentation of common or easily recognizable diseases, blind spots in non-hunted species and only a fraction of discovered carcasses being submitted. Thirdly, we found that substantial amounts of wildlife health data may be available at local hunting administrations or disease specialist centers, but outside the reach of the GWHS and its processes. In conclusion, we recommend that fragmented and federalist GWHS programs like the one addressed require a central, consistent and accessible collection of wildlife health data. Also, considering the growing role of citizen observers in environmental research, we recommend using online reporting systems to harness decentrally available information and fill wildlife health information gaps.
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- What if wildlife health surveillance was not just for veterinarians? - Opportunistic use of population monitoring by camera traps for syndromic surveillance of the Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx)
Laura Lenglin, Delphine Chenesseau, … Anouk Decors·bioRxiv·May 26, 2025
- An agent-based framework for improving wildlife disease surveillance: A case study of chronic wasting disease in Missouri white-tailed deer
A. V. Belsare, M. E. Gompper, … J. Millspaugh·Ecological ModellingPeer-reviewed·Feb 1, 2020
- Using social network analysis and non-invasive antibody detection to explore pathogen exposure in wildlife communities
Oriane Ploquin, Oriane Basso, … Eve Miguel·bioRxiv·Dec 12, 2025
- SISS-Geo: Leveraging Citizen Science to Monitor Wildlife Health Risks in Brazil
Márcia Chame, Hélio J. C. Barbosa, … Livia dos Santos Abdalla·Journal of Healthcare Informatics ResearchPeer-reviewed·Jul 3, 2019
- Passive epidemiological surveillance in wildlife in Costa Rica identifies pathogens of zoonotic and conservation importance
A. Alfaro-Alarcon, F. Aguilar, … M. Santoro·bioRxiv·Dec 17, 2021
- Wildlife disease surveillance under uncertainty: an adaptive search-theoretic framework for early detection of transboundary animal diseases
Andrew J. Bengsen, Sébastien Comte, … Steven R. McLeod·bioRxiv·Sep 2, 2026