Comparing Livestock Mobility-Informed Strategies for Peste des Petits Ruminants Control in Nigeria: The Central Role of the Network Backbone

preprint OA: closed
Full text JSON View at publisher

Abstract

Animal mobility is central to pastoral livelihoods and regional trade in West Africa, but it also facilitates the spread of transboundary animal diseases such as Peste des petits ruminants (PPR). In Nigeria, PPR outbreaks recur regularly, yet surveillance and control remain limited in the absence of routine animal-movement tracking. Here, we assess and compare movement-informed control options for PPR using a reconstructed livestock mobility network from a one-time market survey conducted in three northern Nigerian states. We simulate transmission on this network and evaluate three intervention strategies: (i) targeting vulnerable villages, (ii) targeting the links that connect movement communities, and (iii) targeting villages belonging to the network backbone. Across scenarios, backbone-based targeting consistently produced the largest reductions in network connectivity and epidemic outcomes, outperforming strategies focused on vulnerable nodes or inter-community links. These results suggest that backbone-informed control could provide a practical, resource-efficient pathway to strengthen PPR control in settings where routine movement data are scarce.
Full text 1,390 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
Abstract Animal mobility is central to pastoral livelihoods and regional trade in West Africa, but it also facilitates the spread of transboundary animal diseases such as Peste des petits ruminants (PPR). In Nigeria, PPR outbreaks recur regularly, yet surveillance and control remain limited in the absence of routine animal-movement tracking. Here, we assess and compare movement-informed control options for PPR using a reconstructed livestock mobility network from a one-time market survey conducted in three northern Nigerian states. We simulate transmission on this network and evaluate three intervention strategies: (i) targeting vulnerable villages, (ii) targeting the links that connect movement communities, and (iii) targeting villages belonging to the network backbone. Across scenarios, backbone-based targeting consistently produced the largest reductions in network connectivity and epidemic outcomes, outperforming strategies focused on vulnerable nodes or inter-community links. These results suggest that backbone-informed control could provide a practical, resource-efficient pathway to strengthen PPR control in settings where routine movement data are scarce. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. Footnotes New version with line numbers, required by PCI (this journal uses the biorxiv preprint and this version is not accepted).

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2025) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00