Primum non nocere —first do no harm—is a familiar idiom in medicine and valuable advice for those involved in planning and undertaking intensive conservation interventions in conservation emergencies such as Australia's bushfires. The risk of introducing or amplifying infectious disease to a threatened species in such interventions is real, and effective mitigation of this risk demands its prioritization in emergency conservation responses.

Southern and eastern Australia have experienced bushfires of unprecedented scale and intensity since September 2019 (Nolan et al. 2020), raising legitimate concern for survival of wildlife populations and species. Governmental and nongovernmental agencies are implementing or considering emergency conservation interventions to improve survival probability of species affected by bushfire. Although justified, some interventions can increase risk of introducing or amplifying infectious diseases in wildlife, which could have significant, long‐term consequences for individuals and populations.

Infectious disease has emerged as a significant threat to wildlife. Prominent examples include avian malaria in Hawaii, canine distemper in wild carnivores, and sarcoptic mange in many wild animal species. Chytridiomycosis, a fungal disease of amphibians spread globally by human activity, has caused the decline of at least 501 species and probable extinction of 90 of these (Scheele et al. 2019). White nose syndrome, a fungal disease introduced to North America, has caused the deaths of millions of insectivorous bats and catastrophic declines in at least 4 species (Blehert et al. 2009; Frick et al. 2010). Beak and feather disease virus (BFDV) has caused deaths following introduction to captive and wild populations of critically endangered orange‐bellied parrots (Neophema chrysogaster ) (Peters et al. 2014). The iconic koala (Phascolarctos cinereus ) is affected by Chlamydia , Koala retrovirus , and sarcoptic mange.

Important drivers of infectious disease emergence in wildlife include exposure to novel infectious pathogens and changes in transmission dynamics in a natural host. These manifest most commonly through atypical intraspecific and interspecific contact events, including those mediated through mechanical vectors such as equipment. For instance, considerable evidence supports the global movement of living and mechanical vectors of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd) as the cause of decline of at least 501 amphibian species (Scheele et al. 2019). Such movement fostered atypical contact between populations of amphibians in which Bd was native and populations that were evolutionary naïve. Atypical intraspecific and interspecific contact events commonly occur with intensive conservation interventions such as those conducted in an emergency (e.g., supplementary feeding, artificial refuge installations, translocations, captive breeding), because these activities can involve the aggregation of animals in time and space, enabling disease spillover and transmission through increased animal to animal contact. Some conservation interventions remove spatial and temporal barriers to infectious disease transmission between species and populations, for instance, locating captive breeding facilities far from the natural distribution of a species and where direct or indirect contact with domestic and wild animals might occur. These create an alignment of opportunity for spillover of infectious pathogens into new hosts, as seen in zoonotic disease emergence in humans (Plowright et al. 2017).

While the likelihood of disease emergence for any single conservation intervention may not be high, the consequence of such an event can be severe. For example, BFDV emerged in 2 of only 3 captive breeding programs for threatened parrots in Australia following likely introduction into the captive population (Peters et al. 2014). Repeated introductions of BFDV, a listed key threatening process since 2001, have occurred in the orange‐bellied parrot recovery program in the past decade (Das et al. 2020), highlighting failings in contemporary recovery programs to manage infectious disease and biosecurity, even for known pathogens (Raidal & Peters 2018). Regular breaches of protocol considered insignificant by those without expertise in infectious disease and implementation of processes (e.g., changes in feeding regime or decontamination procedures) for which disease risk has not been assessed or managed occur, even where standard protocols exist for biosecurity and hygiene. In a world of competing resources, it can be challenging to ensure disease risk analysis is undertaken and recommendations implemented across numerous conservation interventions, even when there is advanced understanding of disease risks to the species in question. Mitigation of other threats often takes priority over disease threats. In the 2019–2020 Australian bushfires, 119 animal species were affected (Department of Agriculture, Water and Energy 2020). The concern with this event and other large environmental disasters is that a large number of new, intensive conservation interventions are likely to be deployed. The aggregate likelihood of infectious disease introduction across all these interventions is high. With predictions of increasing bushfire frequency, scale, and intensity in Australia and elsewhere and other environmental disasters, including drought, flooding, and extreme heat associated with climate change, the need for intensive conservation interventions is likely to increase.

The most effective infectious disease management is prevention and mitigation of disease incursion and transmission; these should therefore be proactively incorporated into conservation interventions during design and planning, rather than reactively follow disease emergence. This can best be done by making disease risk analysis and expert knowledge core components in all phases of an emergency conservation response. Biosecurity and disease risk analysis guidelines and expertise already exist (OIE & IUCN 2014; Wildlife Health Australia 2018), and conservation practitioners practicing due diligence will draw on these resources and on disease experts preemptively. As we act fast and decisively to conserve biodiversity in environmental disasters, we should also pause to consider and incorporate mitigation strategies for infectious disease.

原始无伤害-首先是无害-是医学上的习语，对参与计划和采取重大保护措施以应对诸如澳大利亚丛林大火等自然灾害的人们来说，是宝贵的建议。在此类干预措施中将传染病引入或扩大到受威胁物种的风险是真实存在的，要有效缓解这种风险，就需要在紧急保护措施中优先考虑。

自2019年9月以来，澳大利亚南部和东部经历了前所未有的规模和强度的森林大火（Nolan et al.2020），引起了对野生动植物种群和物种生存的合理关注。政府和非政府机构正在实施或考虑采取紧急保护措施，以提高受森林大火影响的物种的生存可能性。尽管合理，但某些干预措施可能会增加在野生生物中引入或扩大传染病的风险，这可能对个人和人群造成重大的长期后果。

传染病已成为对野生生物的重大威胁。著名的例子包括夏威夷的禽类疟疾，野生食肉动物的犬瘟热和许多野生动物物种的sar窃。壶菌病是一种通过人类活动在全球范围内传播的两栖动物的真菌病，已导致至少501种物种减少，其中90种可能灭绝（Scheele等人2019）。白鼻子综合症是一种引入北美的真菌病，已导致数百万食虫蝙蝠死亡，至少4种物种发生了灾难性的衰落（Blehert等，2009； Frick等，2010）。）。喙羽病病毒（BFDV）有如下介绍极度濒危的橙腹鹦鹉的圈养和野生种群（造成死亡学名：Neophema麝）（Peters等2014）。标志性的树袋熊（Phascolarctos cinereus）受衣原体，树袋熊逆转录病毒和睑板man的影响。

野生生物中传染病出现的重要驱动因素包括暴露于新型传染性病原体以及自然宿主中传播动态的变化。这些最常见的是通过非典型的种内和种间接触事件体现出来的，包括那些通过机械媒介（例如设备）介导的事件。例如，大量证据支持了至少501种两栖动物物种减少的原因，即梭状芽孢杆菌（Btrachochochytrium dendrobatidis，Bd）的生命和机械媒介的全球运动（Scheele et al.2019）。这种运动促进了Bd原生于两栖动物的种群与幼稚的种群之间的非典型接触。非典型种内和种间接触事件通常发生在强化保护干预措施中，例如在紧急情况下进行的干预措施（例如，补充喂养，人工避难所设施，易位，圈养繁殖），因为这些活动可能涉及动物在时间和空间上的聚集，因此通过增加动物与动物之间的接触，疾病传播和传播。一些保护性干预措施消除了物种和种群之间传染病传播的时空障碍，例如，将圈养繁殖设施的位置远离物种的自然分布，并可能与家畜和野生动物直接或间接接触。正如人类的人畜共患病出现一样，这些为传染性病原体向新宿主的扩散创造了机会的契合（Plowright et al。2017）。

尽管任何单个保护性干预措施都不会出现疾病，但此类事件的后果可能很严重。例如，在可能被引入圈养种群之后，BFDV出现在澳大利亚受威胁的鹦鹉的仅有的三个圈养繁殖计划中的两个中（Peters等人，2014年）。BFDV是自2001年以来被列为关键威胁过程的BFDV的重复引入，在过去的十年中橙腹鹦鹉恢复计划中已出现这种情况（Das等人，2020年），突显了当代恢复计划在管理传染病和生物安全方面的失败，甚至对已知病原体（Raidal＆Peters 2018）。即使没有针对生物安全和卫生的标准规程，也经常发生违反规程的行为，这些规程被那些没有传染病专业知识的人和没有评估或管理疾病风险的流程实施（例如，喂养方式的改变或去污程序的实施）认为微不足道。在一个竞争激烈的资源世界中，即使对这些物种的疾病风险有了更深的了解，要确保在众多保护性干预措施中进行疾病风险分析并实施建议也可能是一项挑战。减轻其他威胁通常比疾病威胁优先。在2019–2020年澳大利亚的丛林大火中，有119种动物受到影响（2020年农业，水和能源部）。此事件和其他重大环境灾难的问题在于，可能会部署大量新的密集保护干预措施。在所有这些干预措施中，传染病引入的总可能性很高。随着澳大利亚和其他地区森林大火发生频率，规模和强度的增加以及与气候变化相关的其他环境灾害（包括干旱，洪水和极端高温）的预测，对强化保护措施的需求可能会增加。

最有效的传染病管理是预防和减轻疾病的入侵和传播；因此，应在设计和规划过程中将这些措施积极地纳入保护措施中，而不是随着疾病的发生而采取反应性措施。最好通过在紧急保护响应的所有阶段进行疾病风险分析和专家知识的核心组成部分来完成此任务。生物安全和疾病风险分析指南和专业知识已经存在（OIE＆IUCN 2014 ; Australia Wildlife Health 2018），而从事尽职调查的养护从业人员将优先利用这些资源和疾病专家。当我们迅速果断地采取行动保护环境灾难中的生物多样性时，我们也应该停下来考虑并纳入针对传染病的缓解策略。