Socioeconomic and Epidemiological Drivers of Pathogen Dynamics in Wildlife Trade Networks

点击翻译按钮获取中文摘要

The wildlife trade industry involves an estimated 2.5M live animals, valued $300B USD, moving among 180 nations per year. This represents a key pathway for the evolution, emergence, and spread of novel pathogens. Zoonotic and wildlife pathogens (e.g., SARS-CoV-2 and chytrid fungi, respectively) have cost global economies trillions of dollars, led to substantial human life and biodiversity loss, and been linked to wildlife trade. Managing disease in live animal trade networks presents distinctive challenges. Various socioeconomic factors can influence the decisions businesses make about the species they trade and the biosecurity practices they use, which in turn can influence the prevalence, persistence, and spread of pathogens. Therefore, animal trade networks represent a bidirectionally coupled system between pathogen-host ecology and decisions made by business, consumer, and government stakeholders. This project will provide training opportunities for students and post-docs. The overarching goal of this project is to identify how socioeconomic decisions made by stakeholders drive pathogen dynamics in a wildlife trade network and use this information to identify disease mitigation strategies that are economically viable and minimize spillover risk (i.e., pathogen transmission from captive to wild populations). This project is partnering with the U.S. wildlife trade industry and government stakeholders, and will facilitate discussions among them to identify strategies that promote clean trade, while considering socioeconomic impacts on the industry. The project uses a combination of socioeconomic surveys, facilitated discussions, pathogen surveillance, and controlled experiments to build a series of predictive models that can be used to guide policy decisions in wildlife trade and prevent the next global pandemic.This award reflects NSF's statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the Foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.