Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34974641›Full record

ArticleTransboundary and emerging diseases2022

Pathways for avian influenza virus spread: GPS reveals wild waterfowl in commercial livestock facilities and connectivity with the natural wetland landscape.

Fiona McDuie, Elliott L Matchett, Diann J Prosser, John Y Takekawa, Maurice E Pitesky, Austen A Lorenz, Madeline M McCuen, Overton Cory T, Joshua T Ackerman, Susan E W De La Cruz and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Transboundary and emerging diseases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Fiona McDuieU.S. Geological Survey, Western Ecological Research Center, Dixon Field Station, Suite D Dixon, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1948-5613
Elliott L MatchettU.S. Geological Survey, Western Ecological Research Center, Dixon Field Station, Suite D Dixon, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5095-2884
Diann J ProsserU.S. Geological Survey, Eastern Ecological Science Center at the Patuxent Research Refuge (formerly USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center), Laurel, Maryland, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5251-1799
John Y TakekawaSuisun Resource Conservation District, Suisun Marsh Program, West Sacramento, California, USA.
Maurice E PiteskyUniversity of California Davis, School of Veterinary Medicine, Poultry Health and Food Safety Epidemiology, One Shields Avenue, Davis, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0084-6404
Austen A LorenzU.S. Geological Survey, Western Ecological Research Center, Dixon Field Station, Suite D Dixon, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3657-5941
Madeline M McCuenU.S. Geological Survey, Western Ecological Research Center, Dixon Field Station, Suite D Dixon, California, USA.
Overton Cory TU.S. Geological Survey, Western Ecological Research Center, Dixon Field Station, Suite D Dixon, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5060-7447
Joshua T AckermanU.S. Geological Survey, Western Ecological Research Center, Dixon Field Station, Suite D Dixon, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3074-8322
Susan E W De La CruzU.S. Geological Survey Western Ecological Research Center, San Francisco Bay Estuary Field Station, Moffett Field, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6315-0864
Michael L CasazzaU.S. Geological Survey, Western Ecological Research Center, Dixon Field Station, Suite D Dixon, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5636-735X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Zoonotic diseases are of considerable concern to the human population and viruses such as avian influenza (AIV) threaten food security, wildlife conservation and human health. Wild waterfowl and the natural wetlands they use are known AIV reservoirs, with birds capable of virus transmission to domestic poultry populations. While infection risk models have linked migration routes and AIV outbreaks, there is a limited understanding of wild waterfowl presence on commercial livestock facilities, and movement patterns linked to natural wetlands. We documented 11 wild waterfowl (three Anatidae species) in or near eight commercial livestock facilities in Washington and California with GPS telemetry data. Wild ducks used dairy and beef cattle feed lots and facility retention ponds during both day and night suggesting use for roosting and foraging. Two individuals (single locations) were observed inside poultry facility boundaries while using nearby wetlands. Ducks demonstrated high site fidelity, returning to the same areas of habitats (at livestock facilities and nearby wetlands), across months or years, showed strong connectivity with surrounding wetlands, and arrived from wetlands up to 1251 km away in the week prior. Telemetry data provides substantial advantages over observational data, allowing assessment of individual movement behaviour and wetland connectivity that has significant implications for outbreak management. Telemetry improves our understanding of risk factors for waterfowl-livestock virus transmission and helps identify factors associated with coincident space use at the wild waterfowl-domestic livestock interface. Our research suggests that even relatively small or isolated natural and artificial water or food sources in/near facilities increases the likelihood of attracting waterfowl, which has important consequences for managers attempting to minimize or prevent AIV outbreaks. Use and interpretation of telemetry data, especially in near-real-time, could provide key information for reducing virus transmission risk between waterfowl and livestock, improving protective barriers between wild and domestic species, and abating outbreaks.

Indexed as

Cattle DiseasesInfluenza A virusInfluenza in BirdsAnimalsAnimals, WildCattleDucksHumansLivestockPoultryWaterWetlandsWaterAIVdomestic poultryGPS telemetrymigrationsurrogate habitatwild birdswild-domestic interfacezoonotic diseases

Identifiers

PMID34974641
PMCPMC9788224

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.