Part III: Conservation and Management396
expansion of ASF through the trade of infected pigs or pork, as
well as natural movements of infected wild boar (Gavier-Widen
et al. 2015; Vergne et al. 2017). Between 2012 and 2015 the dis-
ease has been reported in Belarus, Ukraine, Lithuania, Poland,
Latvia, and Estonia in both wild boar and DP. Currently it seems
established in wild boar populations from Eastern Europe and
able to spread locally, independently of outbreaks in DP. The
suspected causes for the maintenance of the virus in wild boar
populations, never observed previously, are environmental con-
tamination with infectious material (carcasses, blood, or excreta
from infected animals), in combination with prolonged survival
of the ASF virus during winter periods (EFSA 2015). This appar-
ently independent circulation of the virus in wild boars con-
tributes significantly to the risk for further spread towards the
more abundant and dense wild boar populations in Central and
Western Europe (Gavier-Widen et al. 2015).Interactions between Peccaries and Feral Pigs
in the New World
Feral pigs were introduced in several parts of the American
continent during the process of colonization, adapting well into
their new environment, and are considered alien invasive spe-
cies. Abundant feral pig populations are reported in the southern
USA and in flooded savannas of South America (Lord & Lord,
1991; Desbiez et al. 2009). Occasionally, they share the same
habitat and food resources with local Tayassuidae. However,
very few studies have investigated potential interspecies trans-
mission of pathogens between these three sympatric species.
Desbiez et al. (2009) concluded that in the Brazilian Pantanal,
niche overlap and habitat-sharing were highest between the
native species of peccaries, rather than between peccaries and
feral pigs. Data indicated that members of the two pig families
had a tendency to avoid each other and that direct contact was
not frequent. However, the sharing of some common pathogens
has been described (Tables 35.1 and 35.2), and can potentially
occur without physical contact, through the consumption of
contaminated soil, water, or infected carcasses. It should be
noted, though, that most of these studies are based on serologi-
cal profiles without any evidence of interspecies transmission by
phylogenetic methods.Description of Techniques for Studying Wild
and Domestic Pig Interactions
Interactions between wild pigs and DP can be studied through a
diversity of methods which are listed below and provide different
scales of information. Despite those methods not being specific
for pig species, they have been tested in the field and reported to
be useful to assess interactions between pig-like species.Questionnaires
The collection of local knowledge through the use of question-
naires has been described as a useful and cost-effective tool
to assess the potential contacts between wild and domestic
ruminants in North America (Brook & McLachlan 2008) and
Africa (Jori et al. 2011). It is based on the principle that localstakeholders, due to their outdoor activity, are privileged observ-
ers of interactions between wild and domestic species, which can
be captured retrospectively through interviews. This method
has been used to assess interactions between wild boar and DP in
Corsica (Trabucco et al. 2014; Jori et al. 2016), Switzerland (Wu
et al. 2012), and the USA (Wyckoff et al. 2009) and in Uganda
for warthog and cattle interactions (Meunier et al. 2017). The
method is useful to gather descriptive information on interac-
tions (nature, frequency, duration). It can also provide a fair idea
of the temporal and spatial distribution of interactions in an area
or territory (Figure 35.2), or identify specific practices of local
stakeholders that can facilitate or mitigate interactions (Brook &
McLachlan 2009; Jori et al. 2015). The information collected
can subsequently contribute to further studies or activities, such
as (i) the design of awareness campaigns among stakeholders
in order to mitigate disease risks and their impact on human,
animal, and environmental health; (ii) the development of epi-
demiological models (e.g. modelling the spread of diseases);
or (iii) the identification of study areas suitable for monitoring
interactions at a finer scale with more sophisticated methods
(telemetry or camera traps).Figure 35.2 Information obtained through questionnaires allowed the
development of a map of interactions between wild boars and domestic pigs
in the main extensive pig production areas of Corsica (source: Jori et al. 2015).
(A black and white version of this figure will appear in some formats. For the colour
version, please refer to the plate section.).03712:55:54