Ecology and Management of Avian Botulism on the Canadian Prairies

Recommendations

Info

70Table 3. Logistic analyses evaluating effects <strong>of</strong> date <strong>of</strong> b<strong>and</strong>ing, sex, <strong>and</strong> treatment (botulism vs.control) on the probability <strong>of</strong> direct recovery for mallards b<strong>and</strong>ed at botulism outbreak <strong>and</strong> nonoutbreakcontrol sites in 1999. Outbreak sites included: Kimiwan Lake, Alberta (AB); EyebrowLake, Saskatchewan (SK); Old Wives Lake, SK; <strong>and</strong> Whitewater Lake, Manitoba (MB) (datafrom the two SK sites were combined for analysis). Control sites for AB, SK, <strong>and</strong> MB wereBrooks, Last Mountain Lake, <strong>and</strong> Big Grass Marsh, respectively. Second-order interactionswere not significant (P > 0.10) <strong>and</strong> were therefore removed from each model.Province n Source Coefficient χ 2 df PAB 2,189 Date 0.01 0.47 1 0.495Sex 0.49 4.10 1 0.043Treatment 0.37 0.57 1 0.451SK / MB 3,645 Date -0.01 1.17 1 0.279Sex 0.36 2.68 1 0.102Province 0.06 0.13 1 0.722Treatment -0.67 5.44 1 0.020
71Table 4. Logistic analyses evaluating effects <strong>of</strong> date <strong>of</strong> b<strong>and</strong>ing, sex, <strong>and</strong> treatment (botulism vs.control) on the probability <strong>of</strong> direct recovery for mallards b<strong>and</strong>ed at botulism outbreak <strong>and</strong> nonoutbreakcontrol sites in 2000. Outbreak sites included: Frank Lake, Alberta (AB); Crane LakeSaskatchewan (SK); Paysen Lake, SK; Kettlehut Lake, SK; <strong>and</strong> Whitewater Lake, Manitoba(MB) (data from the three SK sites were combined for analysis). Control sites for AB, SK, <strong>and</strong>MB were Brooks, Last Mountain Lake, <strong>and</strong> Big Grass Marsh, respectively. Second-orderinteractions were not significant (P > 0.10) <strong>and</strong> were therefore removed from each model.Province n Source Coefficient χ 2 df PAB 3018 Date 0.01 1.28 1 0.258Sex 0.41 3.72 1 0.054Treatment 0.58 3.22 1 0.073SK / MB 7066 Date 0.00 0.15 1 0.695Sex 0.63 21.39 1
Page 1:
Ecology an
Page 4 and 5:
iiThe model of bot
Page 6 and 7:
ivTABLE OF CONTENTSEXECUTIVE SUMMAR
Page 8 and 9:
2Research from the 1970s supported
Page 10 and 11:
4(Coburn and Quort
Page 12 and 13:
6could potentially serve as substra
Page 14 and 15:
8additional lakes and</stro
Page 16 and 17:
10challenge because management assu
Page 18 and 19:
12Rocke TE, Bollinger TK. 2007. <st
Page 20 and 21:
14Table 1. Names and</stron
Page 22 and 23:
16PART IEFFICACY OF CARCASS CLEAN-U
Page 24 and 25:
18Our objectives were to determine:
Page 26 and 27: 20marked carcasses potentially avai
Page 28 and 29: 22Intensive search studyOn 18 Augus
Page 30 and 31: 24if extrapolated to Whitewater Lak
Page 32 and 33: 26Table 1. Characteristics
Page 34 and 35: 28Table 3. Number of</stron
Page 36 and 37: 30Table 5. Estimates of</st
Page 38 and 39: Figure 2. Map of W
Page 40 and 41: Figure 4. Variation of</str
Page 42 and 43: 36PART IISURVIVAL OF RADIO-MARKED M
Page 44 and 45: 38two lakes were subjected to carca
Page 46 and 47: 40NecropsiesDead birds were include
Page 48 and 49: 42were right censored. One hundred
Page 50 and 51: 44design, possibly with a treatment
Page 52 and 53: 46Rocke TE, Bollinger TK. 2007. <st
Page 54 and 55: 48Table 2. Models used to assess ef
Page 56 and 57: 50Table 4. Models used to evaluate
Page 58 and 59: 52INTRODUCTIONMaggot-laden carcasse
Page 60 and 61: 54among categories after creating a
Page 62 and 63: 56LITERATURE CITEDBurnham KP, Ander
Page 64 and 65: 58Table 2. Candida
Page 66 and 67: 60PART IVLATE-SUMMER SURVIVAL OF MA
Page 68 and 69: 62In each year of
Page 70 and 71: 64Recovery rate comparisons - 1999D
Page 72 and 73: 66between the present study <strong
Page 74 and 75: 68Table 1. Number of</stron
Page 78 and 79: 72Table 5. Direct recovery rates <s
Page 80 and 81: 741210ControlBotulism</stro
Page 82 and 83: 761614ControlBotulism</stro
Page 84 and 85: 78INTRODUCTIONAvian</strong
Page 86 and 87: 80(GPS) receivers (eTrex Venture, e
Page 88 and 89: 82mortality rate was calculated by
Page 90 and 91: 84samples from FG carcasses collect
Page 92 and 93: 86outbreaks in waterfowl (Table 4;
Page 94 and 95: 88birds and toxic
Page 96 and 97: 90LITERATURE CITEDBall G, Bollinger
Page 98 and 99: 92Williamson JL, Rocke TE, Aiken JM
Page 100 and 101: 94Table 2. Species composition <str
Page 102 and 103: 96Table 4. Estimates of</st
Page 104 and 105: 98iiviiiii1 0 1 2 km1 0 1 21 0 1 21
Page 106 and 107: 100PART VIVARIABILITY OF TYPE C CLO
Page 108 and 109: 102seasonal wetland</strong
Page 110 and 111: 104clinical signs of</stron
Page 112 and 113: 106RESULTSThe proportion of
Page 114 and 115: 108sediments in basins of</
Page 116 and 117: 110Williamson JL, Rocke TE, Aiken J
Page 118 and 119: 112Chaplin, SK botulism 3/5 (60) 1/
Page 120 and 121: 114Table 3. Annual and</str
Page 122 and 123: 116MAIN CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDAT
Page 124 and 125: Recommendation 8:The model
Page 126 and 127:
120APPENDIX 1AVIAN BOTULISM IN ALBE
Page 128 and 129:
122July 15, 2002ISBN: 0-7785-0962-1
Page 130 and 131:
1242BackgroundMunro (1927) provides
Page 132 and 133:
1264SUMMARY OF ALBERTA BOTULISM OUT
Page 134 and 135:
128Moyles, D. 1989. Avian</
Page 136 and 137:
13081) 1980 (Calverley 1980)Appendi
Page 138 and 139:
1321010) 1990 (F&W files)LakeDetect
Page 140 and 141:
134123 probable blue-green algal po
Page 142 and 143:
136APPENDIX 2EXPOSURE OF MALLARD DU
Page 144 and 145:
138Toxin was administered orally us
Page 146:
140LITERATURE CITEDCarmichael WW, B
show all

Ecology and Management of Avian Botulism on the Canadian Prairies

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?