A Scoping Review of Foot‐and‐Mouth Disease in Wildlife: Global Evidence to Inform Preparedness in Nonendemic Regions

Foot‐and‐mouth disease (FMD) is a highly contagious virus with severe economic and animal welfare consequences if introduced into nonendemic regions. Given its broad host range, including domestic and wild animals, wildlife must be considered in FMD preparedness and response planning. We conducted a scoping review according to PRISMA‐ScR guidelines and narrative synthesis of 205 publications (year 2000 onward) to examine wildlife susceptibility to FMD and associated control strategies. In the Canadian context, over a dozen native wild ungulate species, as well as feral pigs, are known or likely to be susceptible to FMD. Experimental studies confirm that species such as deer, bison, and pronghorn can develop clinical disease and transmit FMD, yet their potential role as long‐term maintenance hosts remains unclear. This knowledge gap highlights the critical need for targeted research to inform surveillance and control strategies in disease‐free regions. Globally, wildlife‐livestock interfaces are recognized as critical points for potential FMD transmission. Surveillance typically relies on opportunistic sampling of hunted or found‐dead animals. Modeling studies suggest that outbreaks in wildlife are generally self‐limiting without livestock involvement, constrained by ecological factors such as seasonality, population density, and short infectious periods. However, environmental persistence and shared resource use (e.g., water and feed) may facilitate transmission. Control measures include barrier fencing and livestock ring vaccination. Wildlife culling is widely considered infeasible, environmentally damaging, and socially contentious, with use recommended only under narrow, evidence‐based conditions. Enhanced biosecurity, such as reducing wildlife attractants on farms, and movement restrictions are consistently emphasized. Preparedness in nonendemic regions should prioritize risk‐based wildlife surveillance, cross‐sectoral coordination, response protocols, and strategies to mitigate impacts on vulnerable species. An integrated approach encompassing ecological, wildlife, and agricultural perspectives is essential for coordinated, science‐based responses to future FMD incursions involving wildlife.