Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 42 references

First highly pathogenic avian influenza outbreak in a commercial farm in Brazil: outbreak timeline, control actions, risk analysis, and transmission modeling

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper estimates that a 10-day delay in detecting Brazil's first commercial HPAI outbreak would have produced a median of 34 infected farms, versus 4 at a 3-day delay.

desk verdict The first-report value is real, but the modeling section needs a clear rewrite before the headline numbers can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.08492 v1 pith:UYRLUCDZ submitted 2025-09-10 q-bio.PE

Nicolas C. Cardenas , Francisco N.P. Lopes , Paulo A. S. C. de Souza , Fernando H.S. Groff , Ananda P. Kowalski , Alessandra Krein , Rodrigo N. Etges , Daniela L. de Azevedo
show 4 more authors
Alencar Machado Vinícius Maran Felipe A. Machado Gustavo Machado
This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.PE
keywords HPAIavianinfluenzacommercialpoultryoutbreakresponsetransmissionmodelingspatialriskanalysisdetectiondelayBrazil
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper reconstructs Brazil's first highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) outbreak in a commercial farm, a breeder facility in Montenegro, Rio Grande do Sul, confirmed on May 15, 2025. The authors argue that fast detection and a coordinated response—notification to state animal health officials within days, a 3-km infected zone and 10-km surveillance zone, a movement standstill, and disinfection of 4,197 vehicles—stamped out the outbreak with zero secondary farm infections. The paper's main quantitative claim comes from the MHASpread simulation model: if detection had been delayed 3, 5, or 10 days after introduction, the median number of secondarily infected farms would rise from 4 to 6 to 34. Mortality and response data place the introduction 3–10 days before official detection, and the authors identify wild birds as the most likely source, with biosecurity breaches not ruled out. The stakes are concrete because Brazil supplies roughly a third of world chicken meat exports, so a spreading outbreak would threaten trade; the model makes early detection the dominant control lever.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the MHASpread stochastic multilevel model, a farm-level SEIRD simulation in which each farm has within-farm bird-to-bird transmission and between-farm transmission occurs via two routes: actual farm-to-farm movement records and a distance-decaying spatial kernel. The model is parameterized with transmission estimates from studies conducted outside Brazil and run 1,000 times from the detected farm under 3-, 5-, and 10-day detection delays, producing empirical cumulative distributions of secondary infections that are then mapped onto 10-km hexagonal grids. A second component is a spatial autoregressive (SAR) risk model that regresses municipal HPAI case counts on migratory bird abundance and water occurrence, then scales fitted risk by normalized poultry population to classify municipalities as low, medium, or high risk. These two components do different work: the simulation quantifies how detection delay amplifies spread, while the risk model tells animal health officials where to look first.

What would settle it

Re-estimate the transmission parameters from Rio Grande do Sul farm and movement data and re-run the MHASpread model under a 5-day detection delay; if the median secondary infections drops to zero or near zero, the reported delay effect depends on imported parameters. A direct check already exists: the model assigns non-trivial probability to at least one secondary farm in the 5-day scenario, while surveillance of 2,113 farms in the control zones found zero HPAI-positive premises, so the simulated distribution and the observed outcome can be compared directly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Brazil's first commercial HPAI outbreak was contained because detection and response were fast, and that the same incursion under slower detection would have been dramatically larger. Using the MHASpread stochastic multilevel model—a farm-level Susceptible-Exposed-Infected-Recovered/Dead (SEIRD) simulation with within-farm bird-to-bird transmission and between-farm spread through bird movements and a distance-decaying spatial kernel—the authors ran 1,000 realizations from the index farm under 3-, 5-, and 10-day detection delays. The predicted median number of secondary infected farms rises from 4 (IQR 2–5) at 3 days to 6 (IQR 3–22) at 5 days and 34 (IQR 12–47) at 10 days. In reality, the index farm lost 15,650 of 17,008 birds to disease (92% mortality) and the remaining 1,358 were culled, yet no secondary farm infections occurred, and the outbreak was declared over 39 days after the initial notification. The paper presents this contrast as evidence that early detection, movement standstill, and intensive surveillance—not culling alone—prevented an epizootic.

Load-bearing premise

The spread estimates assume that the virus's transmission speed measured in other countries, and the movement and distance rules built into the MHASpread model, apply unchanged to Rio Grande do Sul, and that simulating detection delays without the full control measures is a meaningful counterfactual.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Early detection is the dominant lever: the predicted median secondary farms grow from 4 at a 3-day delay to 34 at a 10-day delay, while the actual response held secondary infections to zero.
  • The control package that worked combined culling with movement standstill and road disinfection: 4,197 vehicle interceptions and 2,113 farm inspections produced no HPAI-positive premises.
  • The risk classification gives a spatial targeting rule: 64.4% of municipalities are low risk, 35.0% medium, and 0.6% high, so surveillance and pre-positioned resources can concentrate on the high-risk set.
  • A single-point, wild-bird introduction is consistent with the genetic evidence: the farm strain matched concurrent zoo wild-bird cases at 98.21–99.79% nucleotide similarity, and no farm-to-farm transmission was registered.
  • If HPAI becomes seasonal or endemic in Brazilian wildlife, the same modeling framework would support decisions about emergency vaccination, which the authors note has not yet been used in Brazil.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the observed zero secondary infections is taken as the ground truth and the actual detection delay was near 5 days, the model's parameterization overestimates spread; re-fitting with Brazilian data would likely shrink the delay effect and narrow the gap.
  • The model omits wild-bird-to-farm transmission and egg movements as separate pathways, so in wetland-rich regions like Montenegro's river valley the true risk could be higher than simulated even with short detection delays.
  • The same simulation-and-risk pipeline could be run prospectively after the next suspicious mortality, using current movement data to pre-position road barriers and surveillance visits before laboratory confirmation.
  • Because the outbreak breached a fenced, high-biosecurity breeder farm, the paper's timeline implies that biosecurity upgrades alone cannot prevent introduction; the binding constraint is detection speed, which points policy toward surveillance and rapid diagnostics rather than only perimeter controls.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript reconstructs Brazil's first HPAI outbreak in a commercial poultry farm, at Montenegro, Rio Grande do Sul, using official reports and field data. It provides an outbreak timeline, describes control actions (standstill, road barriers, culling, surveillance), fits a spatial risk model of HPAI occurrence using temperature and water occurrence, and simulates between-farm spread with the MHASpread model under 3-, 5-, and 10-day detection delays. The central quantitative claims are that introduction occurred 3-10 days before detection and that median secondary infections would rise from 4 (3-day delay) to 6 (5-day delay) and 34 (10-day delay), while the actual response produced zero secondary infections.

Significance. The descriptive timeline and control-response data are valuable and appear carefully compiled from official sources; the paper also produces useful risk maps and makes its model code available through a public repository. The authors explicitly acknowledge the main limitation, imported transmission parameters, and the absence of wild-bird and egg-movement pathways. However, the quantitative forecasting claim is currently not validated against the observed zero-secondary-infection outcome, and the counterfactual scenarios are not fully specified. If the sensitivity and counterfactual issues are resolved, the delay-response analysis could be a useful planning tool; as it stands, the headline eight-fold amplification from 3- to 10-day delay is a model projection rather than an established result.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2 and Abstract] The headline delay-response results are not reconciled with the observed outcome. The abstract and Section 3.2 report medians of 4, 6, and 34 secondary farms for 3-, 5-, and 10-day detection delays, but the real outbreak, whose introduction-to-detection window is estimated at 3-10 days in Section 3.1, produced zero secondary infections. The manuscript should report the simulated probability of zero secondary infections under each scenario and discuss how the actually implemented controls (movement standstill from Day 5, culling, surveillance visits) relate to the 'without control measures' maps in Figure 5; without this, the model's positive predictions cannot be judged against the sole available validation point.
  2. [Sections 2.2 and 3.1] The 3-10 day introduction window is load-bearing because it defines the simulated detection delays, but no derivation is given. Section 3.1 reports clinical signs and mortality, yet the calculation connecting those data to the stated window is absent; the abstract presents the window as established. Please provide the explicit method (for example, mortality-curve reconstruction or back-calculation) or reframe the window as an assumption.
  3. [Sections 2.2 and 4] The model's between-farm transmission parameters are imported from studies outside Brazil, as the Limitations section acknowledges, but the manuscript does not quantify how sensitive the delay-response curve is to those parameters. Because the central quantitative claim is the 3-day versus 10-day difference in median secondary farms, a one-way or global sensitivity analysis is needed to establish that the ranking and magnitude are robust, and the observed zero-secondary-infection outcome should be used as a calibration check rather than only noted as a limitation.
  4. [Sections 2.3 and 3.3] The risk classification in the abstract (64.4% low, 35.0% medium, 0.6% high) does not match the results in Section 3.3, which report 71.23% 'very low' with five additional categories that sum to 100%. Additionally, Equations (1) and (2) have missing symbols, such as the spatial autoregressive parameter and the spatial weights matrix, so the risk model is not fully reproducible as written.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.2] The text switches among '3 day', '3-day', and 'three' when referring to the detection delays; please standardize the notation.
  2. [Figure 4 caption] The caption describes an empirical cumulative distribution, but the text refers to 'predicted number of secondary infections'; clarify whether the y-axis is the cumulative probability over simulations and state the number of simulations used.
  3. [Reference list] Reference formatting is inconsistent, for example 'MORAN, P.A.P.' appears in all caps and some entries lack complete page ranges or access dates; check the journal style.
  4. [Section 3.4.2] The daily staff counts include days with zero recorded personnel, producing an IQR that includes zero; add a sentence explaining how days without recorded activity are treated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the simulation is a forward application of an open-source model with externally sourced parameters, and the risk map is an in-sample fit rather than a derivation from its own output.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claims are produced by a forward simulation: the MHASpread model is applied with HPAI transmission parameters taken from external, non-Brazilian studies (Antonopoulos et al., 2024; Comin et al., 2011; Nickbakhsh et al., 2016), as acknowledged in the Limitations section. The 3-, 5-, and 10-day detection-delay scenarios vary the time between introduction and detection, and the resulting secondary-infection counts are outputs of the within-farm and between-farm transmission dynamics; they are not fitted to the observed outcome of zero secondary infections. No equation in the paper defines the predicted number of infected farms in terms of the input delay or vice versa, and the model is not calibrated to reproduce the headline delay-response relationship. The SAR-based spatial risk analysis uses the 2023-2025 HPAI case counts as the response variable and environmental covariates as predictors, explicitly computing risk from 'fitted values' of the model; presenting in-sample fitted values as a risk map is standard spatial regression practice, not a circular derivation. The self-citations to MHASpread and PDSA are citations to open-source code and a data-management platform, respectively, and the load-bearing transmission parameters come from independent literature. Consequently, there is no specific step in which a prediction reduces by construction to its own input, and the paper's modeling claims are not circular, even though the unvalidated delay-response curve and the discrepancy between simulated and observed secondary infections are legitimate model-accuracy concerns rather than circularity concerns.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes a descriptive timeline, a counterfactual simulation, and a risk map. It does not introduce new theoretical entities. The principal burden is carried by borrowed transmission parameters, fitted SAR coefficients, chosen detection delay scenarios, and the assumption that past HPAI case distributions predict future risk. The risk map is in-sample, and the simulation parameters are not independently validated against the observed zero-secondary-infection outcome.

free parameters (4)
  • HPAI transmission parameters (latent period, infectious period, transmission rate, spatial kernel shape) = not reported in main text
    The model relies on parameters derived from studies outside Brazil (Antonopoulos et al., 2024; Comin et al., 2011; Nickbakhsh et al., 2016), as acknowledged in the Limitations. The central simulation outputs depend on these values, which are not listed in the main text.
  • SAR model coefficients (temperature, water occurrence) = not reported specifically; estimated in Equation 1
    The spatial autoregressive model is fitted to municipality-level HPAI case counts; the coefficients are used to produce the risk map, but the paper does not report their values or uncertainty intervals.
  • detection delay scenarios (3, 5, 10 days) = 3, 5, 10 days
    These are chosen scenario values, not fitted parameters. They define the central counterfactual comparisons, and the paper states the introduction likely occurred 3-10 days before detection without formally deriving this window.
  • normalization scaling for bird population (min-max) = 0 to 1
    Equation 2 uses min-max scaled bird counts to weight the risk, and this scaling choice affects the final risk categories and the percentage of municipalities in each class.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Transmission between farms follows a kernel that decays with distance and mirrors recorded bird movement networks.
    Section 2.2 states that a kernel transmission approach is used and that movements are modeled to replicate actual movements; the kernel form and network parameters are not derived in the paper and are not independently verified for this outbreak.
  • domain assumption HPAI transmission parameters estimated in other countries apply to Rio Grande do Sul.
    Explicit in the Limitations: 'we have used HPAI transmission parameters derived from studies conducted outside Brazil.' This is load-bearing for the secondary infection counts, and the observed zero secondary infections despite a ~5-day delay suggests possible overestimation.
  • domain assumption Municipality-level HPAI case counts from 2023-2025 are a valid dependent variable for predicting future incursion risk.
    The SAR model regresses past case counts on temperature and water occurrence and then presents the fitted values as predicted risk. This assumes the past distribution of cases is a reliable guide to future introduction risk, which is not tested out-of-sample.
  • domain assumption Geolocations of farms from the SDA database are complete and accurate after removing 7.15% inconsistent records.
    Section 2.1 reports that 6,815 records were excluded; if the excluded records are spatially biased, the farm network and risk maps could be affected.
  • domain assumption Wild birds are the most likely source of introduction.
    Section 4 supports this with genetic similarity (98.21-99.79%) and a concurrent zoo outbreak, but the paper also states that biosecurity breaches could not be ruled out. The source attribution is an inference, not a confirmed fact.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of First highly pathogenic avian influenza outbreak in a commercial farm in Brazil: outbreak timeline, control actions, risk analysis, and transmission modeling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UYRLUCDZ

@misc{pith2026250908492,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: First highly pathogenic avian influenza outbreak in a commercial farm in Brazil: outbreak timeline, control actions, risk analysis, and transmission modeling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UYRLUCDZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.08492}
}
read the original abstract

On May 15, 2025, Brazil reported its first highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) outbreak in a commercial poultry breeder farm in Montenegro, Rio Grande do Sul. This study presents the outbreak timeline, control measures, along with spatial risk assessment and epidemiological model used to simulate detection delays. The transmission model considered Susceptible Exposed Infected Recovered Dead farm statuses to simulate within farm and between farm dynamics under 3 day, 5 day, and 10 day detection delays. The single infected commercial farm lost 15,650 birds, with 92% mortality due to HPAI, and additional culling of the remaining birds on Day 5 post-notification to the state animal health officials. Based on the mortality and outbreak response data, the introduction likely occurred 3 10 days before its official detection. Our field investigations suggested that wild birds were the most likely source of introduction, although biosecurity breaches could not be ruled out. Control measures implemented included movement restrictions and a control zone, from which 4,197 vehicles were inspected upon entry. Risk analysis classified 64.4% of municipalities as low risk, 35.0% as medium risk, and 0.6% as high risk. Our HPAI disease simulation results showed that the number of secondary infections would increase from a median of 4 farms (IQR 2 5) with a 3 day delay to 6 (IQR 3 22) and 34 (IQR 12 47) farms with 5 day and 10 day delays, respectively. The rapid veterinary response eliminated the outbreak within 32 days of detection, highlighting the critical role of early detection and prompt response.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.08492 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Spatial distribution of poultry farms in Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the infected farm, housing conditions, and infected birds' clinical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Summary of the main events in the first HPAI outbreak in Rio Grande do Sul, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Empirical cumulative distribution illustrating the simulated number of predicted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Spatial probability of infection. Results from the MHASpread model showing HPAI spread after five days from introduction without control measures. The left map provides an overview of Rio Grande do Sul, while the right panel provides a closer view of the area. The colo…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Predicted spatial risk of HPAI introduction into commercial poultry farms by the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Control area. The central red dot represents the infected commercial breeding layer farm. In contrast, the black dots indicate the geolocations in which backyard poultry farms were located, and the brown star dots represent commercial breeding poultry farms. The orange…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Distribution of the number of staff involved in the first HPAI outbreak in Brazil. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_8.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Cardenas1, Francisco N.P

    First highly pathogenic avian influenza outbreak in a commercial farm in Brazil: outbreak timeline, control actions, risk analysis, and transmission modeling Nicolas C. Cardenas1, Francisco N.P. Lopes2, Paulo A. S. C. de Souza2, Fernando H.S. Groff2, Ananda P. Kowalski2, Alessandra Krein2, Rodrigo N. Etges2, Daniela L. de Azevedo2, Alencar Machado3, Viníc...

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Introduction Avian influenza virus (AIV) is a zoonotic pathogen that affects a wide range of species, including wild birds and domestic birds (Kirkeby and Ward, 2022). AIVs pose significant challenges due to their global distribution and high mortality in birds, often decimating entire commercial flocks within days (Charostad et al., 2023; Goodman et al.,...

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Primary data were extracted from reports issued by SEAPI and the Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, and Supply (MAPA)

    Materials and methods Outbreak description To reconstruct the outbreak timeline, we systematically compiled and cross-validated information from multiple official sources in collaboration with the Departamento de Vigilância e Defesa Sanitária Animal, Secretaria da Agricultura, Pecuária, Produção Sustentável e Irrigação (SEAPI), Porto Alegre, Brazil (SEAPI...

    work page 2024

  4. [5]

    The restriction was lifted 13 days later

    to May 30, 2025, while movements outside the control area remained unrestricted. The restriction was lifted 13 days later. Six fixed road sanitary barriers were installed, and one mobile road barrier was utilized to control movements into and out of the control area (Figure 7). Barrier checkpoints resulted in 4,197 vehicle interceptions and the disinfecti...

    work page 2025

  5. [6]

    NASA EOSDIS Land Process. DAAC. https://doi.org/10.5067/MODIS/MOD13A2.006 Goodman, J.L., Baylor, N.W., Katz, R., Gostin, L.O., Bright, R.A., Lurie, N., Gellin, B.G.,

    work page doi:10.5067/modis/mod13a2.006

  6. [7]

    (1) Where represents the spatial autoregressive parameter, is the spatial weights matrix, and represents the error term. represents the count of HPAI present at the municipality , reported in Brazil from January 2023 to May 2025 (WOAH, 2024), while and represents the average value of the area of migratory birds reported at the municipality, and the probab...

    work page 2023

  7. [8]

    Hijmans, 2021), MHASpread (Cespedes Cardenas and Machado, 2024), sf (Pebesma, 2018), and Random Forest (Liaw and Wiener, 2002)

    and the following packages: tidyverse (Wickham et al., 2019), raster (J. Hijmans, 2021), MHASpread (Cespedes Cardenas and Machado, 2024), sf (Pebesma, 2018), and Random Forest (Liaw and Wiener, 2002)

    work page 2019

  8. [9]

    The progression of mortality in each barn is depicted in the Supplementary Material (Figure S1)

    On the same day, barn two (8,458 layers) was inspected, and birds had no clinical signs or mortality (Supplementary Material, Figure S1). The progression of mortality in each barn is depicted in the Supplementary Material (Figure S1). Notification of a suspected case of Avian Respiratory and Nervous Syndrome (ARN) was then reported to the Official Veterin...

    work page 2025

Show all 42 references
  1. [12]

    and May 28 (Day 18), follow-up inspections in the control area started and were completed on May 31 (Day 21). From Day 21 on, the surveillance continued at the index farm, and monitoring was also conducted in high-risk municipalities with the detected presence of migratory bir...

    2025

  2. [13]

    HPAI clade 2.3.4.4b was confirmed on the fourth day post notification to the state animal health officials

    The farm was visited the next day, and samples were collected and submitted for testing. HPAI clade 2.3.4.4b was confirmed on the fourth day post notification to the state animal health officials. Immediate control actions included quarantine, culling, surveillance, and field ...

    1994

  3. [14]

    ABPA – Assoc

    Consolidação 2024: exportações de carne de frango crescem 3% e alcançam novo recorde [WWW Document]. ABPA – Assoc. Bras. Proteína Anim. URL https://abpa-br.org/noticias/consolidacao-2024-exportacoes-de-carne-de-frango-crescem-3-e-alcancam-novo-recorde/ Animal and Plant Health ...

    2024

  4. [19]

    Travel Med

    A comprehensive review of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) H5N1: An imminent threat at doorstep. Travel Med. Infect. Dis. 55, 102638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmaid.2023.102638 Chesser, R.T.,

    2023

  5. [24]

    Epidemiol

    Best practice assessment of disease modelling for infectious disease outbreaks. Epidemiol. Infect. 146, 1207–1215. https://doi.org/10.1017/s095026881800119x Didan, K.,

    doi

  6. [26]

    Science 387, 1047–1047

    Prepare now for a potential H5N1 pandemic. Science 387, 1047–1047. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adw3278 Graves, I.L.,

    doi

  7. [27]

    https://doi.org/10.2307/1591706 ICMBio,

    doi

  8. [29]

    Presented at the 27th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, SCITEPRESS - Science and Technology Publications, Porto, Portugal, pp

    Towards an Ontology-Based Approach for Enhancing Animal Sanitary Event Management:, in: Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems. Presented at the 27th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, SCITEPRESS - Science an...

    doi

  9. [30]

    https://doi.org/10.3201/eid3003.231157 Degeling, C., Lederman, Z., Rock, M.,

  10. [31]

    Transbound

    Pathways for avian influenza virus spread: GPS reveals wild waterfowl in commercial livestock facilities and connectivity with the natural wetland landscape. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 69, 2898–2912. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.14445 MORAN, P.A.P.,

    doi

  11. [32]

    Epidemics 17, 27–34

    Modelling the impact of co-circulating low pathogenic avian influenza viruses on epidemics of highly pathogenic avian influenza in poultry. Epidemics 17, 27–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epidem.2016.10.005 PDSA-RS,

    2016 doi

  12. [33]

    {Simple Features for R: Standardized Support for Spatial Vector Data}. R J. 10, 439--446. https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2018-009 Planchand, S., Vergne, T., Guérin, J.-L., Rautureau, S., Gerbier, G., Lambert, S.,

    2018 doi

  13. [34]

    https://doi.org/10.3201/eid3101.241140 Prado Siqueira, R.,

  14. [35]

    First report and genetic characterization of the highly pathogenic avian influenza A(H5N1) virus in Cabot’s tern (Thalasseus acuflavidus), Brazil. Vet. Anim. Sci. 22, 100319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vas.2023.100319 SDA,

    2023

  15. [37]

    2022-2023 Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza Outbreak: Summary of Depopulation Methods and the Impact on Lateral Spread. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Veterinary Services, Riverdale, MD. Wan, Z., Hook, S., Mill, W., Bearden, B.,

    2022

  16. [38]

    NASA EOSDIS Land Process. DAAC. https://doi.org/10.5067/MODIS/MOD11A1.006 Wickham, H., Averick, M., Bryan, J., Chang, W., McGowan, L., François, R., Grolemund, G., Hayes, A., Henry, L., Hester, J., Kuhn, M., Pedersen, T., Miller, E., Bache, S., Müller, K., Ooms, J., Robinson, ...

    doi

  17. [41]

    Bird Conserv

    Migration and other movements among the lower Paraná River valley wetlands, Argentina, and the south Brazil/Pantanal wetlands. Bird Conserv. Int. 4, 181–190. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959270900002768 Figure legend Figure

    doi

  18. [42]

    A) Farm density

    Spatial distribution of poultry farms in Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. A) Farm density. Each hexagon grid is 10 km in size on a log10 scale. The hexagon color represents the total number of farms; B) Bird density. The hexagon color represents the total number of bids in each grid...

    2023

  19. [86]

    https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22171 Reischak, D., Rivetti, A.V., Otaka, J.N.P., Domingues, C.S., Freitas, T.D.L., Cardoso, F.G., Montesino, L.O., Da Silva, A.L.S., Malta, F., Amgarten, D., Goés-Neto, A., De Oliveira, A.F., Camargos, M.F.,

    doi

  20. [251]

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01307-4 Capua, I., Alexander, D.J.,

    doi

  21. [1686]

    https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686 WOAH,

    doi

  22. [1994]

    Bird Conserv

    Migration in South America: an overview of the austral system. Bird Conserv. Int. 4, 91–107. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959270900002690 Comin, A., Klinkenberg, D., Marangon, S., Toffan, A., Stegeman, A.,

    doi

  23. [2007]

    Influenza Other Respir

    Avian influenza infections in birds – a moving target. Influenza Other Respir. Viruses 1, 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-2659.2006.00004.x Cespedes Cardenas, N., Machado, G.,

    2006

  24. [2011]

    PLoS ONE 6, e26935

    Transmission Dynamics of Low Pathogenicity Avian Influenza Infections in Turkey Flocks. PLoS ONE 6, e26935. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0026935 De Araújo, A.C., Silva, L.M.N., Cho, A.Y., Repenning, M., Amgarten, D., De Moraes, A.P., Malta, F., Miller, M., Dorlass, E.G...

    doi

  25. [2012]

    Avian Dis

    Impact of Vaccines and Vaccination on Global Control of Avian Influenza. Avian Dis. 56, 818–828. https://doi.org/10.1637/10183-041012-Review.1 USDA,

    doi

  26. [2014]

    Root mean square error (RMSE) or mean absolute error (MAE)? https://doi.org/10.5194/gmdd-7-1525-2014 Charostad, J., Rezaei Zadeh Rukerd, M., Mahmoudvand, S., Bashash, D., Hashemi, S.M.A., Nakhaie, M., Zandi, K.,

    2014 doi

  27. [2016]

    Public Health Ethics 9, 244–254

    Culling and the Common Good: Re-evaluating Harms and Benefits under the One Health Paradigm. Public Health Ethics 9, 244–254. https://doi.org/10.1093/phe/phw019 Dembek, Z.F., Chekol, T., Wu, A.,

    doi

  28. [2018]

    Influenza Other Respir

    Migratory birds in southern Brazil are a source of multiple avian influenza virus subtypes. Influenza Other Respir. Viruses 12, 220–231. https://doi.org/10.1111/irv.12519 Ayer, M., Brunk, H.D., Ewing, G.M., Reid, W.T., Silverman, E.,

    doi

  29. [2020]

    Robust estimation approach for spatial error model. J. Stat. Comput. Simul. 90, 1618–1638. https://doi.org/10.1080/00949655.2020.1740223 Zuquim Antas, P.D.T.,

    2020

  30. [2021]

    and wild bird data, providing area-based estimates of wild bird abundance in Brazilian territory, retrieved from ICMBio (2025). 2.2 Mechanistic modeling, forecasting the outbreak dynamics A mechanistic, single-pathogen model using a Susceptible-Exposed-Infected-Recovered/Dead ...

    2025

  31. [2022]

    Transbound

    A review of estimated transmission parameters for the spread of avian influenza viruses. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 69, 3238–3246. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.14675 Liaw, A., Wiener, M.,

    doi

  32. [2023]

    As of June 2025, no farm-to-farm transmission has been registered in Rio Grande do Sul, suggesting a single-point introduction

    and in the Brazilian wild bird population (De Araújo et al., 2024). As of June 2025, no farm-to-farm transmission has been registered in Rio Grande do Sul, suggesting a single-point introduction. In addition, this entry route hypothesis is supported by concurrent HPAI detectio...

    2024

  33. [2024]

    and used to simulate the HPAI outbreak. The HPAI model incorporated within-farm dynamics, taking into account bird-to-bird transmission and between-farm transmission through the movement of birds, as well as spatial transmission (Supplementary Material Methods section and Supp...

    1955

  34. [2025]

    Plataforma de Defesa Sanitária Animal do Rio Grande do Sul

    Outbreak data During the outbreak response, daily operational data were collected, which included the number of farms visited for surveillance, the number of staff, and the number of vehicles crossing for cleaning and disinfection at road barriers. The outbreak response activi...

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.