JWD Your personal alerts
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 24(2), 1988, pp. 299-307
© Wildlife Disease Association  1988
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Brittingham, M.
Right arrow Articles by Duncan, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Brittingham, M.
Right arrow Articles by Duncan, R.

A survey of the prevalence of selected bacteria in wild birds

MC Brittingham, SA Temple, and RM Duncan


ABSTRACT

We determined the prevalence of six genera of bacteria from a sample of 387 cloacal swabs from 364 passerines and woodpeckers. The prevalence of bacteria were as follows: Escherichia coli (1%), Pseudomonas spp. (22%), Salmonella spp. (0%), Staphylococcus spp. (15%), Streptococcus spp. (18%), and Yersinia spp. (1%). The prevalence of Streptococcus spp. was higher in omnivorous species than in granivorous species (20% versus 8%). Individuals captured at feeders had a lower prevalence of both Streptococcus spp. (15% versus 33%) and Escherichia coli (0.5% versus 4%) than birds that did not have access to feeders. These differences are probably not due to the feeder per se, but instead to other site related differences. The prevalence of bacteria did not differ between male and female black-capped chickadees, Parus atricapillus. For 279 color marked black-capped chickadees, we calculated the cumulative mortality rate during 12 wk following swabbing. Although the cumulative mortality rates of infected birds were consistently higher than the rates of non-infected birds, none of these differences were significant. Infections may cause slight reductions in survival rates, but we were not able to confirm this with our data.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1988 by the Wildlife Disease Association.