An overview of the challenges and methods for defining the wildlife-disease interface in the context of disease spread modelling, including concepts of infectious diseases epidemiology

ABSTRACT The wildlife-domestic interface is a key concept helping us to understand how diseases affect both wild and domestic animal populations, yet how to define and measure it remains a challenge. One tool which can contribute to our understanding of the wildlife-domestic interface is disease spread modelling. This can provide insight into how diseases spread within and between populations, and guide decision-making for disease control, response and surveillance programs. Specifically, quantitative estimation of contact rates permits such disease spread models to be developed and used confidently. Here we present a case study of the potential spread of rabies (an exotic disease in Australia) within the wild dog-domestic dog (Canis familiaris) ecosystem of northern Australia to illustrate the concept of the wildlife-domestic interface and disease transmission. We summarise a decade of research conducted to understand one such interface, the wild-domestic dog interface at one site in northern Australia, for the purposes of exploring the impact of one specific disease, rabies. Over a period of 10 years, free-roaming domestic dogs and wild dogs in the Northern Peninsula Area (NPA) of Cape York, Queensland were studied. Key findings included identification of a small but important group of domestic dogs which regularly roam in bushland areas; peri-urban wild dog activity, particularly in the dry season, likely driven by the availability of food sources; and the potential for interaction between hunting dogs and wild dogs in remote areas, particularly during the wet season. These observations can be used to inform disease spread models and identify strategies to mitigate the risks of disease transmission. However, the collection and incorporation of data into such models needs more consideration regarding what information is usable (such as contact rates) and the best ways to collect it. The scarcity of such models incorporating the wildlife-domestic interface suggests that integrated epidemiological-ecological studies are needed to fill this gap.