
==== Front
Vet Anim Sci
Vet Anim Sci
Veterinary and Animal Science
2451-943X
Elsevier

S2451-943X(24)00060-7
10.1016/j.vas.2024.100393
100393
Article
Potential biosecurity breaches in poultry farms: Presence of free-ranging mammals near laying-hen houses assessed through a camera-trap study
Graziosi Giulia giulia.graziosi2@unibo.it
a⁎
Lupini Caterina a
Favera Francesco Dalla a
Martini Gabriella b
Dosa Geremia b
Garavini Gloria c
Trevisani Giacomo c
Mannelli Alessandro d
Catelli Elena a
a Department of Veterinary Medical Sciences, University of Bologna, Ozzano dell'Emilia, 40064, BO, Italy
b Veterinary Services, Local Health Unit of Imola (A.U.S.L. di Imola), Imola, 40026, BO, Italy
c Veterinary Services of Eurovo Group, Imola, 40026, BO, Italy
d Department of Veterinary Sciences, University of Torino, Grugliasco, 10095, Torino, Italy
⁎ Corresponding author. giulia.graziosi2@unibo.it
26 8 2024
12 2024
26 8 2024
26 100393© 2024 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
2024

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Diligent application and implementation of biosecurity measures stand as the most effective measures to prevent disease transmission through direct or indirect interactions between poultry and free-ranging animals. Among these, free-ranging mammals can be hosts or disseminators of several pathogens relevant to poultry and of public health concern. Moreover, evidence of susceptibility to avian influenza virus infection in non-human mammals has raised questions about their potential role in the virus' epidemiology at the domestic animal-wildlife interface. Given this background, this study aimed to identify mammal species occurring near laying-hen houses and characterize the spatiotemporal patterns of these visits. Seven camera traps were deployed for a year-long period in three commercial poultry farms in a densely populated poultry area in Northern Italy. Various methods, including time series analysis and generalized linear models, were employed to analyze daily mammal visits. A total of 1,867 camera trap nights yielded 567 videos of seven species of wild mammals, and 1,866 videos showed domestic pet species (cats and dogs). Coypus (Myocastor coypus) and cats were the two mammals more frequently observed near poultry houses. For wild mammals, visits significantly increased at night, and slightly decreased during the spring season. Overall, the data hereby provided lay the groundwork for designing novel surveillance and intervention strategies to prevent cross-species disease transmission. Moreover, the utilization of visual evidence depicting free-ranging animals approaching poultry houses could assist health authorities in educating and raising awareness among stakeholders about potential risks of pathogen spillover.

Keywords

Poultry farms
Camera-traps
Wild mammals
Domestic mammals
Coypus
Cats
Pathogens’ transmission
==== Body
pmc1 Introduction

The risk of transmission of infectious diseases in intensive poultry farming, amplified by factors such as densely populated poultry areas and poor management of the flocks, represents a continuous challenge for birds’ health and welfare Hagenaars, Boender, Bergevoet & van Roermund (2018); Muir et al. (2008); Van Limbergen et al. (2020). Furthermore, direct and indirect interactions between wild and farmed animals can mediate pathogens’ spillover or spillback at the domestic animal-wildlife interface Wiethoelter, Beltran-Alcrudo, Kock & Mor (2015). Farm biosecurity stands as one of the most effective tools for mitigating the risk of introduction and spread of diseases within and in-between farms Robertson (2020). Among these diseases, highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) has devastating consequences to the poultry industry in multiple countries. Since 2020, an unprecedented number of outbreaks due to the HPAI H5Nx viruses of clade 2.3.4.4b has been reported worldwide, following the 2021 intercontinental spread of this Eurasian lineage to the American continent Bevins et al. (2022); Caliendo et al. (2022); Leguia et al. (2023). A high number of HPAI infections in wild birds has also been observed in the same period (EFSA et al., 2023a), with mortality events and die-offs reported for a broad range of bird species Kleyheeg et al. (2017); Rijks et al. (2022). Besides this, HPAI H5Nx virus infections of clade 2.3.4.4b have also affected both wild and domestic mammals in Europe, United States of America, Canada, South America, and Japan EFSA et al. (2023b); APHIS (2023). The majority of the affected species belonged to the Carnivora order, coming into contact with naturally infected wild birds or poultry through a predator-prey relationship. This is the case for both terrestrial and aquatic wild mammals Bordes et al. (2023); Floyd et al. (2021); Plaza et al. (2024); Leguia et al. (2023); Murawski et al., 2024; Puryear et al. (2023); Rijks et al. (2022); Shin et al. (2019); Tammiranta et al. (2023); Thorsson et al. (2023). Farmed wild species raised for fur production in Europe were also found infected Agüero et al. (2023); Lindh et al. (2023). Recent HPAI H5N1 virus detections in cats and dogs prompted further concerns public health, due to their close contacts with humans (EFSA et al., 2023a). Overall, evidence of susceptibility to infection has raised concerns about the potential involvement of wild or domestic mammals in the epidemiology of avian influenza viruses (AIVs) in or near poultry farms Root & Shriner (2020). Given the rising number of HPAI detections in mammals, an increased passive surveillance in wild and free-roaming domestic carnivores has been therefore recommended EFSA et al. (2023a). Additionally, knowledge gained from a deeper understanding of the domestic bird-wildlife interface could enhance the selection of targeted mammal species to be included in epidemiological surveys of AI and mammalian-borne poultry diseases. This, in turn, could contribute to the development of more effective disease surveillance and prevention strategies Barasona, VerCauteren, Saklou, Gortazar & Vicente (2013). Notably, free-ranging mammals have been primarily recognized as hosts or disseminators of other pathogens relevant to poultry, particularly bacteria. Among these, virulent avian serovars of Pasteurella multocida, the causative agent of fowl cholera, were isolated in a number of healthy wild mammals captured in turkey farms’ premises Snipes et al. (1988). Zoonotic agents such as Salmonella or Leptospira have also been isolated from rodents sampled in chicken farms Domańska-Blicharz, Opolska, Lisowska & Szczotka-Bochniarz (2023); Manabella Salcedo et al. (2021).

Previous research on the characterization of the poultry-wildlife interface has primarily concentrated on wild bird data, combining field observations and camera trap recordings Burns et al. (2012); Elbers & Gonzales (2020); Le Gall-Ladevèze et al. (2022); Martelli et al. (2023); Veen et al. (2007). As results, rodents and wild carnivores have been predominantly reported among mammals Elbers & Gonzales (2020); Scott et al. (2018).

This study aimed to characterize visits of domestic and wild mammal to three commercial poultry facilities in Northern Italy, through a yearlong camera trap survey. Specifically, the research focused on identifying the species frequenting the vicinity of the poultry houses and describing their behavior and detection patterns over time, as a preliminary step to identify potential disease transmission routes between free-ranging mammals and poultry.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Camera trap survey

The study area was set in the Bologna province, Emilia-Romagna region, within a densely populated poultry area at high risk of HPAI introduction from wild birds due to the presence of waterways and natural or artificial wetlands used for purposes such as water storage for cropland irrigation, gamebirds hunting grounds, or wastewater plants (“zone B” at high risk of AI introduction and higher risk of AI spread according to the DGSAF protocol number 29,049 dated November 20, 2019, https://www.trovanorme.salute.gov.it/norme/dettaglioAtto?id=71728). The selected area also borders the Argenta valleys of the Delta Po Regional Park, among the largest freshwater wetlands in northern Italy.

Three commercial layer farms, namely Farm 1, Farm 2 and Farm 3, were selected at random from a group of a total of 20 laying hen farms that reported wildlife presence within farms’ boundaries, also preliminarily assessed through on-site visits. The assessment involved conducting short interviews with farmers, making direct observations of wildlife, and identifying indirect signs such as tracks and scats. Prior permission was obtained from the owner to install camera-traps before commencing the study.

Farm 1 and Farm 3 were two conventional in-door aviaries, housing approximately 130,000 and 1.4 million hens, respectively. Farm 2 was an organic layer farm that housed 140,000 hens with outdoor spaces accessible to the animals. In these outdoor areas, there were no poultry feeding points, and water was sheltered to prevent access by wild birds. The three facilities were surrounded by fences; however, several breaches were noticed. Pest-control through rodenticide baits was routinely applied. Water channels, arable fields and, in case of Farm 1, a fishing sport lake, were located in the vicinity of the farms (< 500 m).

Seven motion-sensing infrared digital cameras (Dark-Ops Pro XD Dual Lens, Browning Trail Cameras, Utah, U.S.A.) were deployed in the three above-mentioned facilities at sites where signs of wildlife were observed, within the farms’ boundaries. Cameras were set to operate from 6 a.m. – 6 a.m. and programmed to record 30-second-long videos after detecting movement, with a lag period of 30 s to avoid continuous triggers. Cameras were deployed across the three farms (Fig. 1) at feed silos area (FSilo) (location C, D, F) and chicken manure collection point (CMan) (location A, E, G). Drainage ditches were located nearby location G, within the camera's field of view. On Farm 1 an additional camera was placed near the air inlets of a poultry house (PHouse) (location B), to monitor the area adjacent to the fishing sport lake. On Farm 1 and 2, the study ran from January 2021 – December 2021, whereas on Farm 3 from February 2021 – November 2021. Standard camera-trap survey's guidelines were followed to set up the study Wearn & Glover-Kapfer (2017). An average distance of 30 cm between the camera sensor and the ground was applied, in order to detect small to medium-sized mammals (McCallum, 2013; Molyneux, Pavey, James & Carthew, 2017), and the camera vertical angle was perpendicular to the ground surface. Prior to deployment, time and date displayed on the camera traps were synchronized, and a unique code was assigned to identify each camera location ID. Throughout the study, camera traps’ batteries and SD cards were replaced every three weeks. The operations performed, such as setup, battery and SD card replacements, and malfunctions, were recorded in a data sheet using Microsoft Excel 2021, version 16.49.Fig. 1 Satellite images of Farm 1, 2, and 3. The red circles represent the camera trap locations (A to G). Poultry houses, chicken manure collection points, feed silos, and presence of waterways are shown. Map data: Google Earth Pro (2022).

Fig 1

2.2 Data processing and analysis

This study exclusively considered videos capturing wild or domestic mammals, while wild bird visits were characterized elsewhere (Graziosi et al., 2024). Visual analysis of the recordings was conducted using the Timelapse Image Analyzer (Greenberg & Godin, 2012) by two authors independently (G.G. and F.D.F.). If a disagreement in species identification occurred, the visual analysis was conducted jointly and resolved.

A wild or domestic mammal visit was defined as an observation of at least one individual of a given species within a 30-minute time interval from previous observation of the same species. Duplicate footages, defined as recordings of the same species and number of animals within 30 min from the previous detection, were removed from the analysis to avoid probable detection of the same individual Payne, Chappa, Hars, Dufour & Gilot-Fromont (2016); Scott et al. (2018). Clips featuring humans were removed and excluded from further analysis, following current privacy regulations. Metadata extraction, data visualization and time-series analysis were performed utilizing R software version 4.0.4. Team (2020). The ‘camtrapR’ package was used for dataset exploration and computation of activity patterns (relative frequency by time) of wild mammals overall observed ≥ 40 times. Daily mean detection rates (MDR) of visits were calculated based on data collected from three farms over a year, with 95 % confidence intervals (95 % CI) computed using the ‘poisson.test’ function. Daily visit counts were transformed into a time-series object, and seasonal patterns were analyzed by examining three-month rolling averages through the 'zoo' package (version 1.8–12) Zeileis, Grothendieck, Ryan, Andrews & Zeileis (2014). For wild mammals, observed actions were categorized as reported in Table 1 (Kappeler, 2021; Varela-Castro, Sevilla, Payne, Gilot-Fromont & Barral, 2021), and the occurrence percentages of each behavior concerning the total visits of a species were calculated.Table 1 Categorization of behaviors exhibited by wild mammals observed in the three poultry farms monitored through camera-traps.

Table 1Behavior	Description	
Moving through	Passing from one side to another of the camera fields, without exhibiting other behaviors	
Observing surroundings	Explorative behavior expressed as observing surroundings	
Grooming/scratching	Applying paws to the body in repetitive movements, scratching	
Excreting	Urinating or defecating	
Foraging	Eating or drinking	
Territorial behavior	Attacking or charging an intruder of the same species or other species	

Data recorded by different cameras were considered as independent. Prior to further analysis, data from each camera trap were aggregated based on date, monitored farm, season, and time of the day (Day: from 6.00 a.m. – 5:59 p.m; Sunset: from 6 p.m. – 8:59 p.m.; Night: from 9 p.m. – 5:59 a.m) using the ‘aggregate’ function. Normality testing using the Shapiro-Wilk test revealed a non-normal distribution in the aggregated dataset Shapiro & Wilk (1965). To assess potential variations in mammal visits among farms, camera trap locations (chicken manure collection point and feed silos area), seasons, and time of the day, a Kruskal-Wallis test was employed. Generalized linear models (GLMs) utilizing a Poisson distribution, implemented via the ‘MASS’ package ('glm' function), were employed to explore the link between daily wild mammal visit frequencies and several predictor variables such as: monitored farm (Farm 1, 2 or 3), location of the camera traps (CMan or FSilo), season (defined as spring from March 1st, summer from June 1st, autumn from September 1st, and winter from December 1st), and time of the day (night, day, sunset).

3 Results

3.1 Overview of the survey

During the study period, the camera traps were operational for a combined total of 877 trap days on Farm 1, with a monthly camera trap effort ranging from 20 – 26 trap days. On Farm 2, there were 532 trap days, with a monthly camera trap effort varying from 17 – 24 trap days. Farm 3 had 458 trap days, with monthly camera trap effort ranging from 17 – 31 trap days. In total, 31,774 recordings were captured, as detailed in Table 2, requiring a cumulative review time of 442 h for individual analysis.Table 2 Number of videos recorded by each camera trap during the study period.

Table 2Farm	Location monitored	Total days surveyed	Total number of videos recorded (N)	Wild mammals
(% of N)	Domestic mammals
(% of N)	
1	CMana (A)	309	3863	296 (7.6)	101 (2.6)	
PHouseb (B)	267	3910	11 (0.3)	125 (3.2)	
FSilo& (C)	301	3755	72 (1.9)	256 (6.8)	
2	FSilo (D)	301	5072	53 (1.0)	28 (0.5)	
CMan (E)	231	8551	13 (0.15)	24 (0.3)	
3	FSilo (F)	211	2363	37 (1.56)	224 (9.5)	
CMan (G)	247	4260	85 (2.0)	1108 (26)	
a Chicken manure collection point.

b Side of the poultry house, adjacent to air inlets.

c Feed silos area.

Among the recorded videos, 567 (1.8 %) featured wild mammals with a daily visit range of 0–31, while 1866 videos (5.8 %) showed domestic mammals, with an overall daily visit range of 0–99. Seven wild mammal species were identified during the study period (Fig. 2A). These were ranked in descending order of frequency: coypu (Myocastor coypus (Molina, 1782); 437 visits), European hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus Linnaeus, 1758; 57 visits), rats (Rattus spp.; 56 visits), European hare (Lepus europaeus Pallas, 1778; 7 visits), red fox (Vulpes vulpes (Linnaeus, 1758); 5 visits), mice (Apodemus spp. or Mus spp.; 4 visits) and beech marten (Martes foina (Erxleben, 1777); 1 visit). Examining the temporal pattern of the three wild mammals more frequently detected by cameras (Fig. 2B), coypus were observed year-round, rats during autumn and winter, and European hedgehogs were predominantly observed from July to October. The remaining wild mammals were sporadically observed in different months. Regarding domestic mammals, cats were more frequently recorded than dogs (1815 times versus 51, 97 % of observations), with visits spanning the entire study year. Both cats and dogs were feral. Notably, the majority of cat sightings occurred on Farm 3, constituting 73.4 % of all cat observations, attributed to the presence of a feral cat colony.Fig. 2 Overview of wild mammal species observed in the studied poultry farms. (A) Pie chart of wild mammal species; (B) number of wild mammals observed per month.

Fig 2

The behavior most commonly exhibited by wild mammals was moving through the camera's field of view (88.5 % of all observations). Feeding behavior was specifically noted in coypus (43 % of observations), mice (2 %), and European hedgehogs (2 %) (Fig. 3). Among these, coypus, being herbivores, directed their feeding behavior towards terrestrial vegetation in meadow areas within the cameras’ range. Additionally, coypus were observed engaging in ingesting fecal matter (coprophagia), as evidenced by a video reported in Supplementary Material 1.Fig. 3 Behaviors displayed by wild mammals as recorded in the three studied poultry farms.

Fig 3

3.2 Temporal and spatial patterns of observations

Wild mammals were predominantly sighted at the chicken manure collection area (location A) of Farm 1 (296 visits), followed by the chicken manure collection area (location G) of Farm 3 (85 visits) and the silos area (location C) of Farm 1 (72 visits). The silos area of Farm 3 (location G) had the highest number of visits (1108) of domestic mammals, succeeded by the silos area (location C) of Farm 2 (256 visits) and the silos area (location F) of Farm 3 (224 visits). The daily mean detection rate (MDR) of wild mammal visits across the three farms was 0.30 (95 % CI: 0.28–0.33) (Table 3), while for domestic mammals was 1.0 (95 % CI: 0.95–1.04) (Table 4). The number of mammal visits significantly varied between farms (Kruskal-Wallis χ²= 127.36, df = 2, p < 0.001) and between cameras located at silos or chicken manure collection areas (Kruskal-Wallis χ²= 75.284, df = 1, p < 0.001). Among the three most frequently observed wild mammal species, the visits of coypus did not differ significantly between farms but did vary significantly based on the camera trap locations (Kruskal-Wallis χ² = 34.97, df = 1, p < 0.001), season (Kruskal-Wallis χ² = 12.295, df = 3, p = 0.006), and time of the day (Kruskal-Wallis χ² = 20.059, df = 2, p < 0.001). Observations of rats and hedgehogs did not show significant differences regarding farms, locations, season, or time.Table 3 Detection rates (mean number of visits in the three farms over a period of one year) and 95 % confidence intervals (95 % CI) of wild mammals’ visits on Farm 1, 2, and 3.

Table 3Farm	Camera trap days	Overall mean detection rate
(95% CI)	Location	Mean detection rate (95% CI)	
1	309	0.4 (0.4 – 0.5)	CMan (A)	0.9 (0.8 – 1.1)	
267	PHouse (B)	0.04 (0.02 – 0.1)	
301	FSilo (C)	0.2 (0.2 – 0.3)	
2	301	0.2 (0.16 – 0.23)	FSilo (D)	0.2 (0.1 – 0.2)	
231	CMan (E)	0.05 (0.03 – 1.0)	
3	211	0.2 (0.15 – 0.23)	FSilo (F)	0.2 (0.1 – 0.2)	
247	CMan (G)	0.3 (0.3 – 0.4)	

Table 4 Detection rates (mean number of visits in the three farms over a period of one year) and 95 % confidence intervals (95 % CI) of domestic mammals’ visits on Farm 1, 2, and 3.

Table 4Farm	Camera trap days	Overall mean detection rate
(95% CI)	Location	Mean detection rate (95% CI)	
1	309	0.55 (0.5 – 0.6)	CMan (A)	0.3 (0.3 – 0.4)	
267	PHouse (B)	0.5 (0.4 – 0.55)	
301	FSilo (C)	0.85 (0.75 – 1.0)	
2	301	0.1 (0.1 – 0.1)	FSilo (D)	0.1 (0.06 – 0.13)	
231	CMan (E)	0.1 (0.06 – 0.15)	
3	211	3.0 (2.75 – 3.1)	FSilo (F)	1.1 (0.9 – 1.2)	
247	CMan (G)	4.5 (4.2 – 4.8)	

Being coypus, rats, hedgehogs, cats and dogs more frequently observed, the characteristics of their visits to the farm facilities are summarized in Table 5.Table 5 Summary of the characteristics of visits of coypus, rats, hedgehogs, cats, and dogs in the three studied poultry farms.

Table 5	Coypus	Rats	Hedgehogs	Cats	Dogs	
Daily mean detection rate (95% CI)	0.23 (0.21 −0.26)	0.03 (0.02 – 0.04)	0.03 (0.02 – 0.04)	0.97 (0.93 – 1.02)	0.03 (0.02 – 0.03)	
Mean number of individuals per visit (range)	1.1 (1–6)	1.05 (1–2)	1.0 (1)	1.0 (1)	1.0 (1)	
Favorite season	Winter	Autumn	Summer	n.a.a	n.a.	
Favorite site	CMan	FSilo	CMan	FSilo	PHouse	
a n.a. not applicable – the favorite season variable was not considered for domestic mammals, as their presence in poultry farms was not attributable to natural events.

The three-month rolling averages displayed in Fig. 4A showed a notable increase in daily domestic mammal visits during winter, reaching its maximum in February. Conversely, the spring, summer, and autumn seasons exhibited a lower average number of detections. For wild mammals, the rolling averages of daily visits of coypus, rats and hedgehogs are provided in Fig. 4B.Fig. 4 Temporal distribution of mammal visits across the study period (camera traps at locations A to G). (A) Three-month-long rolling average of daily counts for domestic mammals; (B) Three-month rolling averages of the most frequently observed wild mammals. Coypus are represented by the blue line, rats by the pink line, and hedgehogs by the ocher line.

Fig 4

Being these three wild species observed ≥ 40 times, their daily activity patterns are presented in Fig. 5 (5A-5C). Coypus were observed consistently throughout the day, with a slight decrease in frequency around mid-day. Hedgehogs and rats, being nocturnal species, were observed exclusively from 9:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.Fig. 5 Activity patterns (relative frequency by time) of coypus, European hedgehogs, and rats visiting the three studied poultry farms.

Fig 5

The frequency of wild mammal visits was statistically analyzed in relation to the monitored farm, camera trap location, season, and time of day. The presence of domestic mammals on poultry farms, which was predominantly associated with cat colonies and feral dogs, was not included in the modeling. The fitted model accounted for 14.1 % of the data variance based, as indicated by the pseudo R2, and showed an overdispersion value of 0.93 (Zuur, Ieno, Walker, Saveliev & Smith, 2009). A summary of the results is provided in Table 6. Specifically, the feed silos area displayed a significantly lower number of wild mammal visits compared to the chicken manure collection point (RR: 0.58, 95 % CI: 0.46 - 0.73, p < 0.001). When comparing the number of visits during spring to the number of visits during autumn, the observations during spring were 0.64 times lower (0.45 - 0.91, 95 % CI: p = 0.01). Lastly, observations during nighttime were 1.35 times higher than during the daytime (95 % CI: 1.04 - 1.76, p < 0.05).Table 6 Generalized linear model to explain the frequency of visits of wild mammals. The estimates, rate ratios (exponentiated estimates) (95 % CI), and the p-values of Wald test for contrasts between the reference level and the level considered are displayed.

Table 6Explanatory variables and levels	Rate ratio (95% CI)	p-value	
Farm monitoreda	Farm 2	0.78 (0.56 – 1.07)	0.1251	
Farm 3	0.97 (0.73 - 1.29)	0.8320	
Camera trap locationb	FSilo	0.51 (0.46 - 0.73)	<0.001⁎⁎⁎	
Seasonc	Spring	0.64 (0.45 - 0.91)	0.0145*	
Summer	0.93 (0.70 – 1.25)	0.6582	
Winter	1.10 (0.86 - 1.42)	0.4473	
Time of the dayd	Night	1.35 (1.05 - 1.76)	0.0219*	
Sunset	0.83 (0.60 - 1.14)	0.2680	
a Farm 1 taken as a reference.

b Chicken manure collection point (CMan) as a reference.

c Autumn taken as a reference.

d Day time taken as a reference.

⁎ p < 0.05.

⁎⁎⁎ p < 0.001.

4 Discussion

A yearlong camera-trap study was conducted on three laying-hen farms located in a densely populated poultry area. As a result, a total of 567 wild mammal visits and 1866 cat and dog visits were recorded during 1867 camera trap days. The GLM's results showed that daily observations of wild mammals were significantly related to the location of the camera traps, time of the day and season. With respect to the cameras’ locations, the chicken manure collection points were positively related to the frequency of visits. As this location was situated near perimeter areas (Farm 1 and Farm 2) or close to drainage ditches (Farm 3), the animals observed moving through the camera's field of view were likely engaged in further exploration of the farm area or seeking shelter. Visits increased at night, primarily due to the nocturnal activity of the most frequently observed wild species, namely coypus, European hedgehogs, and rats. However, coypus were also observed during daylight hours (from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.), likely due to the absence of large wild predators (Mori, Andreoni, Cecere, Magi & Lazzeri, 2020) and minimal human disturbance. The coypus, a large semiaquatic rodent native to the subtropical regions of South America (Woods, Contreras, Willner-Chapman & Whidden, 1992), is now widespread in Northern and Central Italy, as an invasive alien species subjected to population control Cocchi & Bertolino (2021). To the authors’ knowledge, this study represents the first documented instance of coypus’ activity on commercial animal farms. Coypus were observed throughout the year in all three facilities, and they exhibited feeding behavior in 43 % of the total observations. Unlike wild birds, which are attracted by the food resources offered by the farms (Graziosi et al., 2024; Scott et al., 2018), coypus were only observed foraging on terrestrial vegetation in meadow areas within the camera's range. The presence of these animals was likely facilitated by breaches in the farms’ fences, allowing individuals to enter the farm area. Coypus exhibit a range of disease susceptibility, but there are few reports of infectious diseases documented for this species in the wild Bollo et al., (2003); Lim et al. (2019); Martino et al. (2014); Zanzani et al. (2016). Free-ranging coypus have tested positive for various pathogens of poultry, including zoonotic agents, such as Streptococcus equi subspecies zooepidemicus (Martino et al., 2014), Chlamydia psittaci (Howerth, Reeves, McElveen & Austin, 1994; Martino et al., 2014) and Toxoplasma gondii Bollo et al. (2003); Howerth et al. (1994). With respect to AIV, there have been no reports of coypus being susceptible to infection. Field or experimental studies are therefore needed, considering the aquatic habits of this rodent and the potential overlap in ecological niche with AIV hosts.

Hedgehogs and rats were observed far less frequently than coypus. Epidemiological studies on wild hedgehogs have reported high prevalence of Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Typhimurium or Enteritidis (Handeland et al., 2002; Lawson et al., 2018), which are major food-borne bacteria posing a threat to public health worldwide (EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards et al., 2019). With respect to AIV, to date, hedgehogs have never been reported as being infected, and their susceptibility to the infection remains unknown. On the other hand, AI virus molecular detection in rats has been reported in the USA (Cummings et al., 2019) and China Shao, Zhang, Sun, Liu & Chen (2023). Serological evidence of AIV infection in rats has been found in individuals sampled on a gamebird farm which experienced low pathogenic AIV H5N8, H4N7 and H11N7 outbreaks Shriner et al. (2012). Moreover, several rodent species, such as mice (Mus musculus Linnaeus, 1758) and bank voles (Myodes glareolus (Schreber, 1780)), have been experimentally infected with non-rodent adapted LPAI and HPAI viruses that efficiently replicated in these hosts Romero Tejeda et al. (2015); Shriner et al. (2012). Although rats, which are highly synanthropic, have been abundantly detected around poultry houses through camera trap surveys (Elbers & Gonzales, 2020; Scott et al., 2018), they were surprisingly not detected in our investigation. Given their small home range (Davis, Emlen & Stokes, 1948), rats and mice could potentially influence the local-scale AIV epidemiology by transitioning from the external environment into poultry houses and actively shed the virus. Additionally, they could act as mechanical vectors through AIV-contaminated coats Velkers, Blokhuis, Veldhuis Kroeze & Burt (2017). However, their actual role in the AI virus epidemiology requires further investigation. Furthermore, a recent paper has reviewed bacterial infections in poultry that can be spread through murids and included Salmonella spp., Escherichia coli, Campylobacter spp., Yersinia pseudotuberculosis and Y. enterocolitica Domańska-Blicharz et al. (2023). This evidence emphasizes the importance of implementing efficient on-farm rodent control strategies.

Overall, a limited presence of wild mammals was observed near poultry houses. To further deter wild mammals from entering farm areas, strategies such as fencing the farm and maintaining the fences in good condition are crucial, especially for medium-sized animals. For rodents, implementing pest control through a combination of trapping methods and rodenticide application has been associated with a decreased risk of selecting resistant individuals, which could reproduce and replenish the population Guidobono, León, Gómez Villafañe & Busch (2010). Understanding the behavioral reactions of rodents to baits is also a key element for efficient numerical control of rats and mice on the farm premises Pelz & Klemann (2004).

Results of the camera trap survey hereby presented revealed a high frequency of domestic mammal visits, especially cats. Feral cats can be often found in animal farm areas Coleman & Temple (1993). These were mostly present on Farm 3, where a cat colony was nearby established. Notably, detection of the HPAI H5N1 virus of clade 2.3.4.4b or serological evidence of infection have been recently reported in cats and dogs (EFSA et al., 2023a; Briand et al., 2023; Domańska-Blicharz et al. (2023); Sillman, Drozd, Loy & Harris, 2023), sometimes epidemiologically linked to AI outbreaks in poultry farms Briand et al. (2023); Moreno et al. (2023). The outcomes of HPAI infection in domestic pets can vary from asymptomatic (Moreno et al., 2023) to fatal disease Briand et al. (2023); Canadian Food Inspection Agency (2023); Domańska-Blicharz et al. (2023); Klopfleisch et al. (2007); Songserm et al. (2006). Considering the high number of cat observations reported in this study and their susceptibility to HPAI infection, it is crucial to limit the presence of these mammals on poultry farms to minimize the risk of disease transmission also to humans.

To the best of our knowledge, this study represents the first instance of thoroughly characterizing free-ranging mammal visits on commercial poultry farms using camera trap data. The utilization of visual evidence depicting mammals’ activity around poultry houses, such as the footages recorded through camera traps, could assist health authorities in educating and raising awareness of stakeholders about wildlife presence and potential pathogen spillover risks. In combination with the diligent application and enforcement of biosecurity measures, this awareness stands as one of the most effective preventive measures to prevent pathogens spillover or spillback at the interface between domestic animals, wildlife, and humans.

Among the limitations of our study, the few investigated farms and the inclusion of farms that had already reported wildlife presence within their permits should be highlighted. While it provided essential information on the free-ranging mammals-poultry interface in a densely populated poultry area in Northern Italy, this approach potentially reduces the generalizability of the conclusions to other farm settings and locations. Furthermore, the deployment of cameras was carried out based on the observation of wildlife signs, aiming to maximize chances of detecting free-ranging animals in the vicinity of poultry houses. A potential selection bias of the studied sites could have been therefore introduced and led to overestimation of the results obtained. Additionally, camera placement in areas of high human activity (e.g., feed silos; chicken manure collection points) caused numerous non-relevant triggers, contributing to battery depletion and camera trap failures. This reduced the camera trap effectiveness over the study period, as also reported in other similar studies Bacigalupo, Dixon, Gubbins, Kucharski & Drewe (2022); Engeman, Betsill & Ray (2011). Lastly, for a comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing wild mammal presence and their activity on poultry farms, future research should consider additional variables such as quantitative farm-biosecurity scores (Gelaude, Schlepers, Verlinden, Laanen & Dewulf, 2014), habitat characteristics and environmental factors, not included in the models presented within this study.

5 Conclusions

By defining the species of mammals most frequently observed near poultry houses, the findings presented in this study offer insights into the poultry-wildlife interface. These are important prerequisites for providing scientific guidance in designing disease surveillance and intervention strategies, with the aim of preventing cross-species pathogen transmission. Further studies on the susceptibility to infection of the observed wild and domestic mammal species are essential to fully evaluate their actual role in the epidemiology of various poultry pathogens.

Data availability statement

The data supporting the findings of this study are included within the article. The raw database of camera trap observations obtained during the survey is available upon request to the corresponding author.

Ethical statement

The study did not involve the use of animal or human subjects. Video recordings of humans were discarded in compliance with current national privacy regulations.

Funding statement

This research was partially supported by EU funding within the MUR PNRR Extended Partnership initiative on Emerging Infectious Diseases (Project no. PE00000007 , INF-ACT) to E.C. The PhD grant of G.G. was funded by the Local Public Health Unit of Imola (A.U.S.L di Imola) through the “Fondo per Emergenza Avicola” (Decreto Ministero della Salute 14 marzo 2018) assigned to the Emilia-Romagna region to develop innovative programs for avian influenza surveillance and prevention in poultry farms.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Giulia Graziosi: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Software, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. Caterina Lupini: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Methodology, Investigation, Data curation. Francesco Dalla Favera: Formal analysis, Data curation. Gabriella Martini: Project administration, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization. Geremia Dosa: Project administration, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization. Gloria Garavini: Investigation. Giacomo Trevisani: Investigation. Alessandro Mannelli: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Methodology, Formal analysis, Data curation. Elena Catelli: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Validation, Supervision, Resources, Conceptualization.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Appendix Supplementary materials

Image, video 1

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the directors and staff of the Eurovo Group for granting permits for the camera trap survey in their poultry farms and providing logistical support.

Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.vas.2024.100393.
==== Refs
References

Agüero M. Monne I. Sánchez A. Zecchin B. Fusaro A. Ruano M.J. del Valle Arrojo M. Fernández-Antonio R. Souto A.M. Tordable P. Cañás J. Bonfante F. Giussani E. Terregino C. Orejas J.J. Highly pathogenic avian influenza A(H5N1) virus infection in farmed minks Spain, October 2022 Eurosurveillance 28 3 2023 2300001 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2023.28.3.2300001
2022-2023 Detections of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza in Mammals 2023 APHIS (U.S. Department of Agriculture) Retrieved from https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalhealth/animal-disease-information/avian/avian-influenza/hpai-2022/2022-hpai-mammals Accessed October 10, 2023
Bacigalupo S.A. Dixon L.K. Gubbins S. Kucharski A.J. Drewe J.A. Wild boar visits to commercial pig farms in southwest England: implications for disease transmission European Journal of Wildlife Research 68 6 2022 1 13 10.1007/s10344-022-01618-2 34876892
Barasona J.A. VerCauteren K.C. Saklou N. Gortazar C. Vicente J. Effectiveness of cattle operated bump gates and exclusion fences in preventing ungulate multi-host sanitary interaction Preventive Veterinary Medicine 111 1-2 2013 42 50 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2013.03.009 23602337
Bevins S.N. Shriner S.A. Cumbee J.C. Jr. Dilione K.E. Douglass K.E. Ellis J.W. Killian M.L. Torchetti M.K. Lenoch J.B Intercontinental Movement of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza A(H5N1) Clade 2.3.4.4 Virus to the United States 2021 Emerging Infectious Diseases 28 5 2022 1006 1011 10.3201/eid2805.220318 35302933
Bollo E. Pregel P. Gennero S. Pizzoni E. Rosati S. Nebbia P. Biolatti B. Health status of a population of nutria (Myocastor coypus) living in a protected area in Italy Research in Veterinary Science 75 1 2003 21 25 10.1016/S0034-5288(03)00035-3 12801459
Bordes L. Vreman S. Heutink R. Roose M. Venema S. Pritz-Verschuren S.B.E. Rijks J.M. Gonzales J.L. Germeraad E.A. Engelsma M. Beerens N. Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5N1 Virus Infections in Wild Red Foxes (Vulpes vulpes) Show Neurotropism and Adaptive Virus Mutations Microbiology Spectrum 11 1 2023 10.1128/spectrum.02867-22
Briand F.X. Souchaud F. Pierre I. Beven V. Hirchaud E. Hérault F. Planel R. Rigaudeau A. Bernard-Stoecklin S. Van der Werf S. Lina B. Gerbier G. Eterradossi N. Schmitz A. Niqueux E. Grasland B. Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza A(H5N1) Clade 2.3.4.4b Virus in Domestic Cat France, 2022 Emerging Infectious Diseases 29 8 2023 1696 1698 10.3201/eid2908.230188 37379514
Burns T.E. Ribble C. Stephen C. Kelton D. Toews L. Osterhold J. Wheeler H. Use of observed wild bird activity on poultry farms and a literature review to target species as high priority for avian influenza testing in 2 regions of Canada The Canadian Veterinary Journal 53 2 2012 158 166 22851777
Caliendo V. Lewis N.S. Pohlmann A. Baillie S.R. Banyard A.C. Beer M. Brown I.H. Fouchier R.A.M. Hansen R.D.E. Lameris T.K. Lang A.S. Laurendeau S. Lung O. Robertson G. van der Jeugd H. Alkie T.N. Thorup K. van Toor M.L. Waldenström J. Yason C. Kuiken T. Berhane Y. Transatlantic spread of highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1 by wild birds from Europe to North America in 2021 Scientific Reports 12 1 2022 10.1038/s41598-022-13447-z
Canadian Food Inspection Agency. (2023). Domestic dog tests positive for avian influenza in Canada. Retrieved from https://www.canada.ca/en/food-inspection-agency/news/2023/04/domestic-dog-tests-positive-for-avian-influenza-in-canada.html. Accessed October 10, 2023.
Cocchi, R., & Bertolino, S. (2021). Piano di gestione nazionale della Nutria Myocastor coypus. Retrieved from https://www.mase.gov.it/sites/default/files/archivio/allegati/trasparenza_valutazione_merito/ATTIGENERALI/2021/piano_gestione_nutria_10-2021.pdf. Accessed October 10, 2023.
Coleman J.S. Temple S.A. Rural Residents' Free-Ranging Domestic Cats: A Survey 21 1993 Wildlife Society Bulletin 381 390 (1973-2006) http://www.jstor.org/stable/3783408
Cummings C.O. Hill N.J. Puryear W.B. Rogers B. Mukherjee J. Leibler J.H. Rosenbaum M.H. Runstadler J.A. Evidence of Influenza A in Wild Norway Rats (Rattus norvegicus Boston, Massachusetts Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 7 2019 10.3389/fevo.2019.00036
Davis D.E. Emlen J.T. Stokes A.W. Studies on Home Range in the Brown Rat Journal of Mammalogy 29 3 1948 207 225 10.2307/1375387
Domańska-Blicharz K. Opolska J. Lisowska A. Szczotka-Bochniarz A. Bacterial and Viral Rodent-borne Infections on Poultry Farms. An Attempt at a Systematic Review Journal of Veterinary Research 67 1 2023 1 10 10.2478/jvetres-2023-0012 37008769
Domańska-Blicharz K. Świętoń E. Świątalska A. Monne I. Fusaro A. Tarasiuk K. Wyrostek K. Styś-Fijoł N. Giza A. Pietruk M. Zechchin B. Pastori A. Adaszek Ł. Pomorska-Mól M. Tomczyk G. Terregino C. Winiarczyk S. Outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza A(H5N1) clade 2.3.4.4b virus in cats Poland, June to July 2023 Eurosurveillance 28 31 2023 10.2807/1560-7917.Es.2023.28.31.2300366
Elbers A.R.W. Gonzales J.L. Quantification of visits of wild fauna to a commercial free-range layer farm in the Netherlands located in an avian influenza hot-spot area assessed by video-camera monitoring Transboundary and Emerging Diseases 67 2 2020 661 677 10.1111/tbed.13382 31587498
Engeman R. Betsill C. Ray T. Making Contact: Rooting Out the Potential for Exposure of Commercial Production Swine Facilities to Feral Swine in North Carolina EcoHealth 8 1 2011 76 81 10.1007/s10393-011-0688-8 21598058
EFSA ECDC EURL Adlhoch C Fusaro A Gonzales J L. Kuiken T. Mirinavičiūtė G. Niqueux É. Staubach C. Terregino C. Baldinelli F. Rusinà A. Kohnle L Avian influenza overview June–September 2023 EFSA Journal 21 10 2023 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8328
EFSA ECDC EURL Adlhoch C Fusaro A Gonzales J L. Kuiken T. Melidou A. Mirinavičiūtė G. Niqueux É. Ståhl K. Staubach C. Terregino C. Baldinelli F. Broglia A. Kohnle L Avian influenza overview April – June 2023 EFSA Journal 21 7 2023 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8191
Floyd T. Banyard A.C. Lean F.Z.X. Byrne A.M.P. Fullick E. Whittard E. Mollett B.C. Bexton S. Swinson V. Macrelli M. Lewis N.S. Reid S.M. Núñez A. Duff J.P. Hansen R. Brown I.H. Encephalitis and Death in Wild Mammals at a Rehabilitation Center after Infection with Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza A(H5N8) Virus, United Kingdom Emerging Infectious Diseases 27 11 2021 2856 2863 10.3201/eid2711.211225 34670647
Gelaude P. Schlepers M. Verlinden M. Laanen M. Dewulf J. UGent: a quantitative tool to measure biosecurity at broiler farms and the relationship with technical performances and antimicrobial use Poultry Science 93 11 2014 2740 2751 10.3382/ps.2014-04002
Google Earth Pro. (2022). Retrieved from https://www.google.com/earth/about/versions/. Accessed 21 December, 2023.
Graziosi G. Lupini C. Dalla Favera F. Martini G. Trevisani G. Garavini G. Mannelli A. Catelli E. Characterizing the domestic-wild bird interface through camera traps in an area at risk for avian influenza introduction in Northern Italy Poultry Science 103 8 2024 10.1016/j.psj.2024.103892
Greenberg S. Godin T. Technical Report 2012 https://grouplab.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/grouplab/uploads/Publications/Publications/2012-TimelapseImageAnalysis.Report2012-1028-11.pdf
Guidobono J.S. León V. Gómez Villafañe I.E. Busch M. Bromadiolone susceptibility in wild and laboratory Mus musculus L.(house mice Argentina Pest Management Science 66 2 2010 162 167 10.1002/ps.1850 19823991
Hagenaars T.J. Boender G.J. Bergevoet R.H.M. van Roermund H.J.W. Risk of poultry compartments for transmission of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza PLoS One 13 11 2018 10.1371/journal.pone.0207076
Handeland K. Refsum T. Johansen B.S. Holstad G. Knutsen G. Solberg I. Schulze J. Kapperud G. Prevalence of Salmonella typhimurium infection in Norwegian hedgehog populations associated with two human disease outbreaks Epidemiology & Infection 128 3 2002 523 527 10.1017/s0950268802007021 12113498
Howerth E.W. Reeves A.J. McElveen M.R. Austin F.W. Survey for selected diseases in nutria (Myocastor coypus) from Louisiana Journal of Wildlife Diseases 30 3 1994 450 453 10.7589/0090-3558-30.3.450 7933295
Kappeler P.M. Animal Behaviour 2021 Springer Cham, Switzerland
Kleyheeg E. Slaterus R. Bodewes R. Rijks J.M. Spierenburg M.A.H. Beerens N. Kelder L. Poen M.J. Stegeman J.A. Fouchier R.A.M. Kuiken T. van der Jeugd H.P Deaths among Wild Birds during Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza A(H5N8) Virus Outbreak, the Netherlands Emerging Infectious Diseases 23 12 2017 2050 2054 10.3201/eid2312.171086 29148372
Klopfleisch R. Wolf P.U. Uhl W. Gerst S. Harder T. Starick E. Vahlenkamp T.W. Mettenleiter T.C. Teifke J.P. Distribution of Lesions and Antigen of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza Virus A/Swan/Germany/R65/06 (H5N1) in Domestic Cats after Presumptive Infection by Wild Birds Veterinary Pathology 44 3 2007 261 268 10.1354/vp.44-3-261 17491066
Koutsoumanis K. Allende A. Alvarez-Ordóñez A. Bolton D. Bover-Cid S. Chemaly M. De Cesare A. Herman L. Hilbert F. Lindqvist R. Nauta M. Peixe L. Ru G. Simmons M. Skandamis P. Suffredini E. Dewulf J. Hald T. Michel V. Niskanen T. Ricci A. Snary E. Boelaert F. Messens W. Davies R. Salmonella control in poultry flocks and its public health impact EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards 17 2 2019 10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5596 EFSA Journal
Lawson B. Franklinos L.H.V. Fernandez Rodriguez-Ramos J Wend-Hansen C Nair S Macgregor S K. John S.K. Pizzi R. Núñez A. Ashton P.M. Cunningham A.A. E M.d.P Salmonella Enteritidis ST183: emerging and endemic biotypes affecting western European hedgehogs (Erinaceus europaeus) and people in Great Britain Scientific Reports 8 1 2018 10.1038/s41598-017-18667-2
Le Gall-Ladevèze C. Guinat C. Fievet P. Vollot B. Guérin J.L. Cappelle J. Le Loc'h G Quantification and characterisation of commensal wild birds and their interactions with domestic ducks on a free-range farm in southwest France Scientific Reports 12 1 2022 10.1038/s41598-022-13846-2
Leguia M. Garcia-Glaessner A. Muñoz-Saavedra B. Juarez D. Barrera P. Calvo-Mac C. Jara J. Silva W. Ploog K. Amaro L. Colchao-Claux P. Johnson C.K. Uhart M.M. Nelson M.I. Lescano J. Highly pathogenic avian influenza A (H5N1) in marine mammals and seabirds in Peru Nature Communications 14 2023 10.1038/s41467-023-41182-0
Lim S.R. Lee D.H. Park S.Y. Lee S. Kim H.Y. Lee M.S. Lee J.R. Han J.E. Kim H.K. Kim J.H. Wild Nutria (Myocastor coypus) Is a Potential Reservoir of Carbapenem-Resistant and Zoonotic Aeromonas spp Korea. Microorganisms 7 8 2019 10.3390/microorganisms7080224
Lindh E. Lounela H. Ikonen N. Kantala T. Savolainen-Kopra C. Kauppinen A. Österlund P. Kareinen L. Katz A. Nokireki T. Jalava J. London L. Pitkäpaasi M. Vuolle J. Punto-Luoma A.-L. Kaarto R. Voutilainen L. Holopainen R. Kalin-Mänttäri L. Laaksonen T. Kiviranta H. Pennanen A. Helve O. Laamanen I. Melin M. Tammiranta N. Rimhanen-Finne R. Gadd T. Salminen M. Highly pathogenic avian influenza A(H5N1) virus infection on multiple fur farms in the South and Central Ostrobothnia regions of Finland July 2023 Eurosurveillance 28 31 2023 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2023.28.31.2300400
Manabella Salcedo I. Fraschina J. Busch M. Guidobono J.S. Unzaga J.M. Dellarupe A. Farace M.I. Pini N. León V.A Role of Mus musculus in the transmission of several pathogens in poultry farms International Journal for Parasitology: Parasites and Wildlife 14 2021 130 136 10.1016/j.ijppaw.2021.01.007 33659179
Martelli L. Fornasiero D. Scarton F. Spada A. Scolamacchia F. Manca G. Mulatti P. Study of the Interface between Wild Bird Populations and Poultry and Their Potential Role in the Spread of Avian Influenza Microorganisms 11 10 2023 https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2607/11/10/2601
Martino P.E. Stanchi N.O. Silvestrini M. Brihuega B. Samartino L. Parrado E. Seroprevalence for selected pathogens of zoonotic importance in wild nutria (Myocastor coypus) European Journal of Wildlife Research 60 3 2014 551 554 10.1007/s10344-014-0805-4
McCallum J. Changing use of camera traps in mammalian field research: habitats, taxa and study types Mammal Review 43 3 2013 196 206 10.1111/j.1365-2907.2012.00216.x
Molyneux J. Pavey C.R. James A.I. Carthew S.M. The efficacy of monitoring techniques for detecting small mammals and reptiles in arid environments Wildlife Research 44 6–7 2017 534 545 10.1071/WR17017 512
Moreno A. Bonfante F. Bortolami A. Cassaniti I. Caruana A. Cottini V. Cereda D. Farioli M. Fusaro A. Lavazza A. Lecchini P. Lelli D. Maroni Ponti A. Nassuato C. Pastori A. Rovida F. Ruocco L. Sordilli M. Baldanti F. Terregino C. Asymptomatic infection with clade 2.3.4.4b highly pathogenic avian influenza A(H5N1) in carnivore pets Italy, April 2023 Eurosurveillance 28 35 2023 10.2807/1560-7917.Es.2023.28.35.2300441
Mori E. Andreoni A. Cecere F. Magi M. Lazzeri L. Patterns of activity rhythms of invasive coypus Myocastor coypus inferred through camera-trapping Mammalian Biology 100 6 2020 591 599 10.1007/s42991-020-00052-8 32837498
Muir W.M. Wong G.K.-S. Zhang Y. Wang J. Groenen M.A.M. Crooijmans R.P.M.A. Megens H.-J. Zhang H. Okimoto R. Vereijken A. Jungerius A. Albers G.A.A. Lawley C.T. Delany M.E. MacEachern S. Cheng H.H Genome-wide assessment of worldwide chicken SNP genetic diversity indicates significant absence of rare alleles in commercial breeds Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105 45 2008 17312 17317 10.1073/pnas.0806569105 18981413
Murawski A. Fabrizio T. Ossiboff R. Kackos C. Jeevan T. Jones J.C. Kandeil A. Walker D. Turner J.C.M. Patton C. Govorkova E.A. Hauck H. Mickey S. Barbeau B. Bommineni Y.R. Torchetti M. Lantz K. Kercher L. Allison A.B. Vogel P. Walsh M. Webby R.J. Highly pathogenic avian influenza A(H5N1) virus in a common bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) in Florida Communications biology 7 1 2024 476 10.1038/s42003-024-06173-x 38637646
Payne A. Chappa S. Hars J. Dufour B. Gilot-Fromont E. Wildlife visits to farm facilities assessed by camera traps in a bovine tuberculosis-infected area in France European Journal of Wildlife Research 62 1 2016 33 42 10.1007/s10344-015-0970-0
Pelz H.J. Klemann N. Rat control strategies in organic pig and poultry production with special reference to rodenticide resistance and feeding behaviour NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 52 2 2004 173 184 10.1016/S1573-5214(04)80012-5
Plaza, P. I., Gamarra-Toledo, V., Rodríguez Euguí, J., Rosciano, N., & Lambertucci, S. A. (2024). Pacific and Atlantic sea lion mortality caused by highly pathogenic Avian Influenza A(H5N1) in South America. Travel medicine and infectious disease, 59. 10.1016/j.tmaid.2024.102712.
Puryear W. Sawatzki K. Hill N. Foss A. Stone J. Doughty L. Walk D. Gilbert K. Murray M. Cox E. Patel P. Mertz Z. Ellis S. Taylor J. Fauquier D. Smith A. DiGiovanni R. van de Guchte A. Gonzalez-Reiche A.S. Khalil Z. van Bakel H. Torchetti M. Lantz K. Lenoch J. Runstadler J. Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza A(H5N1) Virus Outbreak in New England Seals, United States Emerging Infectious Diseases 29 4 2023 786 10.3201/eid2904.221538 36958010
Rijks J.M. Leopold M.F. Kühn S. In 't Veld R. Schenk F. Brenninkmeijer A. Lilipaly S.J. Ballmann M.Z. Kelder L. de Jong J.W. Courtens W. Slaterus R. Kleyheeg E. Vreman S. Kik M.J.L. Gröne A. Fouchier R.A.M. Engelsma M. de Jong M.C.M. Kuiken T. Beerens N. Mass Mortality Caused by Highly Pathogenic Influenza A(H5N1) Virus in Sandwich Terns, the Netherlands 2022 Emerging Infectious Diseases 28 12 2022 2538 2542 10.3201/eid2812.221292 36418000
Robertson I.D. Disease Control, Prevention and On-Farm Biosecurity: The Role of Veterinary Epidemiology. Engineering 6 1 2020 20 25 10.1016/j.eng.2019.10.004
Romero Tejeda A. Aiello R. Salomoni A. Berton V. Vascellari M. Cattoli G. Susceptibility to and transmission of H5N1 and H7N1 highly pathogenic avian influenza viruses in bank voles (Myodes glareolus) Veterinary Research 46 1 2015 51 10.1186/s13567-015-0184-1 25963535
Root J. Shriner S. Avian Influenza A Virus Associations in Wild, Terrestrial Mammals: A Review of Potential Synanthropic Vectors to Poultry Facilities Viruses 12 12 2020 10.3390/v12121352
Scott A.B. Phalen D. Hernandez-Jover M. Singh M. Groves P. Toribio J. Wildlife Presence and Interactions with Chickens on Australian Commercial Chicken Farms Assessed by Camera Traps Avian Diseases 62 1 2018 65 72 10.1637/11761-101917-Reg.1 29620454
Shao J.W. Zhang X.L. Sun J. Liu H. Chen J.M. Infection of wild rats with H5N6 subtype highly pathogenic avian influenza virus in China The Journal of Infection 86 5 2023 e117 e119 10.1016/j.jinf.2023.03.007 36893985
Shapiro S.S. Wilk M.B. An Analysis of Variance Test for Normality (Complete Samples) Biometrika 52 3/4 1965 591 611 10.2307/2333709
Shin D.L. Siebert U. Lakemeyer J. Grilo M. Pawliczka I. Wu N.H. Valentin-Weigand P. Haas L. Herrler G. Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza A(H5N8) Virus in Gray Seals Baltic Sea Emerging Infectious Diseases 25 12 2019 2295 2298 10.3201/eid2512.181472 31742519
Shriner S.A. VanDalen K.K. Mooers N.L. Ellis J.W. Sullivan H.J. Root J.J. Pelzel A.M. Franklin A.B. Low-pathogenic avian influenza viruses in wild house mice PLoS One 7 6 2012 e39206 10.1371/journal.pone.0039206 22720076
Sillman S.J. Drozd M. Loy D. Harris S.P. Naturally occurring highly pathogenic avian influenza virus H5N1 clade 2.3.4.4b infection in three domestic cats in North America during 2023 Journal of Comparative Pathology 205 2023 17 23 10.1016/j.jcpa.2023.07.001 37586267
Snipes K.P. Carpenter T.E. Corn J.L. Kasten R.W. Hirsh D.C. Hird D.W. McCapes R.H. Pasteurella multocida in Wild Mammals and Birds in California: Prevalence and Virulence for Turkeys Avian Diseases 32 1 1988 9 15 10.2307/1590942 3382384
Songserm T. Amonsin A. Jam-on R. Sae-Heng N. Meemak N. Pariyothorn N. Payungporn S. Theamboonlers A. Poovorawan Y. Avian Influenza H5N1 in Naturally Infected Domestic Cat Emerging Infectious Diseases 12 4 2006 10.3201/eid1204.051396
Tammiranta N. Isomursu M. Fusaro A. Nylund M. Nokireki T. Giussani E. Zecchin B. Terregino C. Gadd T. Highly pathogenic avian influenza A (H5N1) virus infections in wild carnivores connected to mass mortalities of pheasants in Finland Infection Genetics and Evolution 111 2023 10.1016/j.meegid.2023.105423
Team, R. C. (2020). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org/. Accessed October 10, 2023.
Thorsson E. Zohari S. Roos A. Banihashem F. Bröjer C. Neimanis A. Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza A(H5N1) Virus in a Harbor Porpoise Sweden. Emerging Infectious Diseases 29 4 2023 852 855 10.3201/eid2904.221426 36918379
Van Limbergen T. Sarrazin S. Chantziaras I. Dewulf J. Ducatelle R. Kyriazakis I. McMullin P. Méndez J. Niemi J.K. Papasolomontos S. Szeleszczuk P. Van Erum J. Maes D. Risk factors for poor health and performance in European broiler production systems BMC Veterinary Research, 16 1 2020 10.1186/s12917-020-02484-3
Varela-Castro L. Sevilla I.A. Payne A. Gilot-Fromont E. Barral M. Interaction Patterns between Wildlife and Cattle Reveal Opportunities for Mycobacteria Transmission in Farms from North-Eastern Atlantic Iberian Peninsula Animals 11 8 2021 https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/11/8/2364
Veen, J., Brouwer, J., Atkinson, P., Bilgin, C., Blew, J., Eksioglu, S., Hoffmann, M., Nardelli, R., Spina, F., Tendi, C., & Delany, S. (2007). Ornithological data relevant to the spread of Avian Influenza in Europe (phase 2): further identification and first field assessment of Higher Risk Species. Retrieved from https://www.wetlands.org/publication/ornithological-data-relevant-to-the-spread-of-avian-influenza-in-europe-phase-2/. Accessed October 10, 2024.
Velkers, F. C., Blokhuis, S. J., Veldhuis Kroeze, E. J. B., & Burt, S. A. (2017). The role of rodents in avian influenza outbreaks in poultry farms: a review. The Veterinary Quarterly, 37(1), 182-194. 10.1080/01652176.2017.1325537.
Wearn O.R. Glover-Kapfer P. WWF-UK Camera-trapping for conservation: a guide to best-practices 1 2017
Wiethoelter A.K. Beltran-Alcrudo D. Kock R. Mor S.M. Global trends in infectious diseases at the wildlife-livestock interface Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 112 31 2015 9662 9667 10.1073/pnas.1422741112 26195733
Woods C.A. Contreras L. Willner-Chapman G. Whidden H.P. Myocastor coypus Mammalian Species 398 1992 1 8
Zanzani S.A. Di Cerbo A. Gazzonis A.L. Epis S. Invernizzi A. Tagliabue S. Manfredi M.T. Parasitic and Bacterial Infections of Myocastor coypus in a Metropolitan Area of Northwestern Italy Journal of Wildlife Diseases 52 1 2016 126 130 10.7589/2015-01-010 26745834
Zeileis, A., Grothendieck, G., Ryan, J. A., Andrews, F., & Zeileis, M. A. (2014). Package ‘zoo’. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/zoo/index.html. Accessed October 10, 2023.
Zuur A.F. Ieno E.N. Walker N. Saveliev A.A. Smith G.M. Mixed Effects Models and Extensions in Ecology with R 2009 Springer New York, USA
