Population dynamics of free-roaming dogs in two European regions and implications for population control
NoteSmith LM, Goold C, Quinnell RJ, Munteanu AM, Hartmann S, Dalla Villa P, et al. (2022) Population dynamics of free-roaming dogs in two European regions and implications for population control. PLoS ONE 17(9): e0266636.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266636
Changes in free-roaming dog population size are important indicators of the effectiveness of dog population management. Assessing the effectiveness of different management methods also requires estimating the processes that change population size, such as the rates of recruitment into and removal from a population. This is one of the first studies to quantify the size, rates of recruitment and removal, and health and welfare status of free-roaming dog populations in Europe. We determined the size, dynamics, and health status of free-roaming dog populations in Pescara, Italy, and Lviv, Ukraine, over a 15-month study period. Both study populations had ongoing dog population management through catch-neuter-release and sheltering programmes. Average monthly apparent survival probability was 0.93 (95% CI 0.81–1.00) in Pescara and 0.93 (95% CI 0.84–0.99) in Lviv. An average of 7 dogs km-2 were observed in Pescara and 40 dogs km-2 in Lviv. Per capita entry probabilities varied between 0.09 and 0.20 in Pescara, and 0.12 and 0.42 in Lviv. In Lviv, detection probability was lower on weekdays (odds ratio: 0.74, 95% CI 0.53–0.96) and higher on market days (odds ratio: 2.58, 95% CI 1.28–4.14), and apparent survival probability was lower in males (odds ratio: 0.25, 95% CI 0.03–0.59). Few juveniles were observed in the study populations, indicating that recruitment may be occurring by movement between dog subpopulations (e.g. from local owned or neighbouring free-roaming dog populations), with important consequences for population control. This study provides important data for planning effective dog population management and for informing population and infectious disease modelling.
表題の論文を日本語訳してみました。翻訳アプリにかけた日本語訳を英文に照らして修正していますが、表記のゆれや訳の間違いがあるかもしれません。正確に内容を知りたい方は、原文をご覧ください
概要
放し飼いされている犬の個体数の変化は、犬の個体数管理の有効性を示す重要な指標である。
さまざまな管理方法の有効性を評価するためには、集団への加入率や集団からの排除率など、集団の規模を変化させるプロセスを推定することも必要である。
本研究は、ヨーロッパにおける放し飼い犬の個体群の規模、加入・離脱率、健康・福祉状態を定量化した最初の研究の一つである。
イタリアのペスカーラとウクライナのリヴィウで、15カ月間にわたって放し飼い犬集団のサイズ、動態、健康状態を調査した。
両調査集団では、捕獲・去勢・再放棄と保護プログラムによる犬の個体数管理を継続的に行っていた。
月平均の見かけの生存確率は、ペスカーラでは0.93（95％CI 0.81-1.00）、リヴィウでは0.93（95％CI 0.84-0.99）であった。
ペスカーラでは平均7頭km-2、リヴィウでは平均40頭km-2が観察された。
一人当たりの侵入確率はペスカーラで0.09～0.20、リヴィウで0.12～0.42と幅があった。
Lvivでは、発見確率は平日で低く（オッズ比：0.74、95％CI 0.53-0.96）、市場の日で高く（オッズ比：2.58、95％CI 1.28-4.14）、見かけの生存確率は雄で低かった（オッズ比：0.25、95％CI 0.03-0.59）。
調査集団では幼獣はほとんど観察されなかったことから、犬の亜集団間の移動（例えば、地元の飼い犬や近隣の放し飼い犬集団から）によって採用が行われている可能性があり、集団制御にとって重要な結果をもたらすことが示された。
本研究は、効果的な犬の個体群管理を計画し、個体群および感染症のモデル化に情報を提供するための重要なデータを提供するものである。
Changes in free-roaming dog population size are important indicators of the effectiveness of dog population management. Assessing the effectiveness of different management methods also requires estimating the processes that change population size, such as the rates of recruitment into and removal from a population. This is one of the first studies to quantify the size, rates of recruitment and removal, and health and welfare status of free-roaming dog populations in Europe. We determined the size, dynamics, and health status of free-roaming dog populations in Pescara, Italy, and Lviv, Ukraine, over a 15-month study period. Both study populations had ongoing dog population management through catch-neuter-release and sheltering programmes. Average monthly apparent survival probability was 0.93 (95% CI 0.81–1.00) in Pescara and 0.93 (95% CI 0.84–0.99) in Lviv. An average of 7 dogs km-2 were observed in Pescara and 40 dogs km-2 in Lviv. Per capita entry probabilities varied between 0.09 and 0.20 in Pescara, and 0.12 and 0.42 in Lviv. In Lviv, detection probability was lower on weekdays (odds ratio: 0.74, 95% CI 0.53–0.96) and higher on market days (odds ratio: 2.58, 95% CI 1.28–4.14), and apparent survival probability was lower in males (odds ratio: 0.25, 95% CI 0.03–0.59). Few juveniles were observed in the study populations, indicating that recruitment may be occurring by movement between dog subpopulations (e.g. from local owned or neighbouring free-roaming dog populations), with important consequences for population control. This study provides important data for planning effective dog population management and for informing population and infectious disease modelling.