Emerging wildlife diseases are taking a heavy toll on animal and plant species worldwide. Mitigation, particularly in the initial epidemic phase, is hindered by uncertainty about the epidemiology and management of emerging diseases, but also by vague or poorly defined objectives. Here, we use a quantitative analysis to assess how the decision context of mitigation objectives, available strategies and practical constraints influences the decision of whether and how to respond to epidemics in wildlife. To illustrate our approach, we parametrized the model for European fire salamanders affected by
Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans
, and explored different combinations of conservation, containment and budgetary objectives. We found that in approximately half of those scenarios, host removal strategies perform equal to or worse than no management at all during a local outbreak, particularly where removal cannot exclusively target infected individuals. Moreover, the window for intervention shrinks rapidly if an outbreak is detected late or if a response is delayed. Clearly defining the decision context is, therefore, vital to plan meaningful responses to novel outbreaks. Explicitly stating objectives, strategies and constraints, if possible before an outbreak occurs, avoids wasting precious resources and creating false expectations about what can and cannot be achieved during the epidemic phase.
Correction to: Plethodontid salamanders show variable disease dynamics in response to Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans chytridiomycosis
