Abstract:
In southern African transfrontier conservation areas (TFCAs), people, livestock and wildlife share
space and resources in semi-arid landscapes. One consequence of the coexistence of wild and
domestic herbivores is the risk of pathogen transmission. This risk threatens local livelihoods relying
on animal production, public health in the case of zoonoses, national economies in the context
of transboundary animal diseases, and the success of integrated conservation and development
initiatives. The level of interaction between sympatric wild and domestic hosts, defining different
wildlife/livestock interfaces, characterizes opportunities of pathogen transmission between host
populations. Exploring the relationship between infection burden and different types of wildlife/
domestic interfaces is therefore necessary to manage the sanitary risk in animal populations through
control options adapted to these multi-host systems. Here, we assessed the infection burdens of
sympatric domestic cattle (Bos taurus/Bos indicus) and African buffalo (Syncerus caffer) at an
unfenced interface and compared the infection burdens of cattle populations at different wildlife/
livestock interfaces in the Great Limpopo TFCA. Patterns of infection in ungulate populations
varied between wild and domestic hosts and between cattle populations at different wildlife/livestock
interfaces. Foot-and-mouth disease, Rift Valley fever and theileriosis infections were detected in
buffalo and cattle at unfenced interfaces; bovine tuberculosis was only present in buffalo; and
brucellosis and lumpy skin disease only in cattle. At unfenced interfaces, cattle populations
presented significantly higher Theileria parva and brucellosis prevalence. We hypothesize that cattle
populations at wildlife/livestock interfaces face an increased risk of infection compared to those
isolated from wildlife, and that the type of interface could influence the diversity and quantity of
pathogens shared. Additional host behavioural and molecular epidemiological studies need to be
conducted to support this hypothesis. If it is confirmed, the management of wildlife/livestock
interfaces will need to be considered through the prism of livestock and public health.
