bioRxiv Science⌕ Search

Biology subjects

Palphramand, K. L.

Publications and source records attributed to Palphramand, K. L..

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Identifying and prioritising conflicts between human and wildlife interests in Great Britain

O_LIA literature review was conducted to identify human-wildlife conflicts associated with British terrestrial mammal species. Conflicts were classified as economic, health, environmental or social, divided into 32 subcategories, and ranked using a Generic Impact Scoring System (GISS). C_LIO_LIWe identified 48 species associated with 200 conflicts. Sika deer were involved in the most conflicts. The highest ranked conflicts were measurable on an economic scale (involving rabbits, badgers, brown rats, grey squirrels), with the total estimated cost of all economic conflicts exceeding {pound}0.5 billion. C_LIO_LIThe most common conflicts were reservoirs of disease and zoonotic disease, with non-native species scoring statistically higher than native species for the latter. Generally, we scored these conflicts low, deemed localised and mild, but highlighted the importance of surveillance to monitor and control disease spread. C_LIO_LIMost species caused minimal conflict, likely due to their limited distribution. We identified potential impact increased as a function of biomass and population size, therefore a GISS may help identify species capable of expanding beyond their current range, such as recently reintroduced beavers. C_LIO_LIA GISS is useful for identifying conflict species but there is also the need to understand the value of British wildlife. We identified costs-to-benefits trade-offs for several high impact species, including rabbits, deer, badgers and foxes, which underlie human-conflict and/or coexistence and are critical for informed decision-making. As one in four British mammal species face local extinction, the emphasis should encourage focus away from conflict resolution to acceptance and/or tolerance where wildlife and people coexist. C_LI

ecology↗

Immune response to co-administration of bovine tuberculosis and contraceptive vaccines in badgers (Meles meles)

Controlling bovine tuberculosis (bTB) in livestock is often hindered by the presence of a wildlife reservoir, such as the Eurasian badger in the UK and Ireland. Vaccinating badgers against bTB can reduce the severity of Mycobacterium bovis infection and potential onwards transmission to cattle, badgers and other species, thus combined with population control might provide additional benefits (and reference models). To evaluate the effects of co-administration of a bTB vaccine (BCG) and a contraceptive vaccine (GonaCon), captive badgers were injected intramuscularly with either BCG only, GonaCon only or BCG+GonaCon (phase 1). The duration of immune response to BCG vaccination and booster vaccination was also evaluated in the BCG only group over a 24-month period (phase 2). The cellular immune responses to purified protein derivatives PPDA and PPDB, used to measure the effects of BCG, did not differ significantly between the BCG only and BCG+GonaCon badgers but were significantly different between the BCG only and GonaCon only badgers. Anti-GnRH antibody titres, quantified to measure the effect of GonaCon, peaked at the first sampling point for the majority of badgers in the GonaCon only and BCG+GonaCon groups. Throughout phase 1, lasting three months post-vaccination, badgers in both GonaCon treatment groups maintained high anti-GnRH antibody titres (1:128,000 or above) that are associated with infertility in this species, with no significant difference between the two GonaCon groups. The immune responses to BCG vaccination in the BCG only badgers (phase 2) were elevated at the first sampling point, approximately three weeks after initial vaccination and booster vaccination, generally declining thereafter. The results from the current study suggest that co-administration of BCG and GonaCon do not have notable deleterious effects on either of the vaccines and that the protective effect of BCG is enhanced by booster vaccination. The protective effects afforded by both vaccines when given together, in terms of reduced disease burden or fecundity, should be determined by further studies.

immunology↗