Study

The effect of protected areas on pathogen exposure in endangered African wild dog (Lycaon pictus) populations

  • Published source details Prager K.C., Mazet J.A.K., Munson L., Cleaveland S., Donnelly C.A., Dubovi E.J., Szykman Gunther M., Lines R., Mills G., Davies-Mostert H.T., Weldon McNutt J., Rasmussen G., Terio K. & Woodroffe R. (2012) The effect of protected areas on pathogen exposure in endangered African wild dog (Lycaon pictus) populations. Biological Conservation, 150, 15-22.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Establish populations isolated from disease

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation
  1. Establish populations isolated from disease

    A site comparison study in 1988–2010 of 16 sites throughout sub-Saharan Africa (Prager et al. 2012) found that fencing reduced prevalence of canine distemper but not of rabies, coronavirus or canine parvovirus in African wild dogs Lycaon pictus. Prevalence of canine distemper was lower in fenced protected sites (0.04 seroprevalence) than in unfenced protected sites (0.28) or unfenced and unprotected sites (0.20). However, the prevalence of rabies, coronavirus or parvovirus did not change significantly between fenced protected sites (rabies: 0.02; coronavirus: 0.03; parvovirus: 0.22 seroprevalence), unfenced protected sites (rabies: 0.06; coronavirus: 0.11; parvovirus: 0.19) and unfenced and unprotected sites (rabies: 0.12; coronavirus: 0.18; parvovirus: 0.21). Blood samples were collected from 268 African wild dogs in 1988–2009 across 16 sites representing five unconnected wild dog populations: South Africa (2 unconnected populations; 7 protected-fenced sites, 3 unprotected-unfenced), Zimbabwe, Botswana (1 population; 2 protected-unfenced site, 2 unprotected-unfenced), Tanzania (1 protected-unfenced site) and Kenya (1 unprotected-unfenced site). Protected-fenced sites had game fencing likely to exclude domestic dogs. Seroprevalence (proportion of animals with detectable antibodies against a disease) was determined from blood samples.

    (Summarised by: Ricardo Rocha)

Output references
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 18

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.


Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust