Moreover, White wagtails were the species most frequently observed on the ground and in close proximity to ducks. These also were the only species seen entering duck premises or perching on drinkers in the presence of ducks. Results showed a wide diversity of wild bird species visiting foraging areas, heavily dominated in frequency by White wagtails (Motacilla alba) and Sparrows (Passer domesticus and Passer montanus). Methods combined direct individual observations on duck outdoor foraging areas, network analysis, and general linear mixed models of abundances. Our study aimed to identify potential key species for interactions with domestic ducks on one free-range duck farm in southwest France. The role of commensal birds in the epidemiology of pathogens in poultry farms remains unclear. (2009), ref b = Benham & Broom (1989), ref c = Drewe et al. Note that the lighter blue shading does not extend all the way to the right of the diagram because there is an upper limit to the value of time which T C2 can take: beyond this value, animals in the same (or nearby) space will not be in contact. Same, near and different are used here to illustrate spatial and temporal differences between examples (see Tables 2-4 for values and ranges for these parameters from published studies). Similarly, S C2 represents 'critical space 2', the maximum amount of space (distance or area) within which indirect contact may occur and T C2 represents 'critical time 2', the maximum duration of time within which indirect contact may occur. S C1 represents 'critical space 1', the maximum amount of space (distance or area) within which direct contact may occur and T C1 represents 'critical time 1', the maximum duration of time within which direct contact may occur. Examples from studies of contacts between badgers and cattle are provided to demonstrate the use of the framework. In doing so, it may aid the development of better disease transmission models and improve the design and effectiveness of interventions to reduce or prevent disease transmission.Ī proposed generic framework for describing and categorising contacts between livestock and wildlife. We hope this framework will help standardise the collection and reporting of contact data a valuable step towards being able to compare the efficacy of wildlife-livestock observation methods. As a result of the wide variation and lack of consensus in the definitions of direct and indirect contacts, we developed a unified framework to define livestock-wildlife contacts that is sufficiently flexible to be applied to most wildlife and livestock species for non-vector-borne diseases. There was a range of observational methods including motion-activated cameras and global positioning system collars. The majority of studies examined cattle contacts with badgers or with deer studies involving wild pig contacts with cattle or with domestic pigs were the next most frequent. Over 30,000 publications were screened, of which 122 fulfilled specific criteria for inclusion in the analysis. A systematic review was conducted to investigate which livestock-wildlife contacts have been studied and why, as well as the methods used to observe each species. Further, a consensus on the definition of what constitutes a ‘contact’ between wildlife and livestock is lacking. Observing the behaviour of many wildlife species is challenging due to their cryptic nature and avoidance of humans, meaning there are relatively few studies in this area. Knowledge of the types, frequency and duration of contacts between livestock and wildlife is necessary to identify risk factors for disease transmission and to design possible mitigation strategies. Concerns about the potential transmission of economically important and zoonotic diseases from wildlife have led to increased surveillance at the livestock-wildlife interface. Wild animals are the source of many pathogens of livestock and humans.

Iobserve review