ArticleVeterinary research2025
Wildlife risk mitigation protocols reduce risk species visits and pathogen marker detection in open-air farms.
Article in Veterinary research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Wildlife-Livestock Interface as a Bidirectional Pathway for the Spread of ESBL-ProducingAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Review
- Tracking pathogen-related markers with eDNA in natural areas: how environmental factors shape surveillance strategies.Veterinary research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Outdoor farming systems may favor the dilution effect of biodiversity on pathogen exposure and contribute to biodiversity conservation through the preservation of valuable habitats. However, owing to the implicit closer interaction with wildlife, outdoor farms are also more at risk for disease maintenance at the wildlife-livestock interface. Disease control options in outdoor farming systems include the development and application of wildlife risk mitigation protocols (RMPs). However, while the nature of the proposed mitigation actions and the degree of farmer uptake have repeatedly been assessed, only limited information exists on their effectiveness. In this study, we revisited 14 farms of a pilot study to quantify the effect of applying RMPs on the detection rates of risk wildlife (assessed by means of camera traps [CTs]) and of selected pathogen markers (using sponges for environmental nucleic acid detection [ENAD]). The application of farm-specific RMPs resulted in a 30% reduction in farm visits by high-risk wildlife and an 18% reduction in the frequency of pathogen marker detection. High-risk species detection declined on 11 farms and increased on 3, all of them small ruminant farms. Regarding pathogen markers, we observed frequency reductions for four markers and increases for two markers. These changes were statistically significant for the Salmonella spp. marker invA. At the farm level, the reduction in the detection frequency of wild boar (Sus scrofa) correlated with the reduction in the detection frequency of the invA marker. These noninvasive methods may be relevant for assessing other interventions at the wildlife-livestock interface, regardless of the farmed species, farming system, and target pathogen.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.