| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
SHORT COMMUNICATION |
1 Environmental Medicine Consortium, College of Veterinary Medicine, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina 27606, USA;
2 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Farmland Wildlife Research Center, Madelia, Minnesota 56062, USA;
3 Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, South Dakota State University, Brookings, South Dakota 57007, USA
8 Corresponding author (email: kmwolf{at}ncsu.edu)
ABSTRACT:
To determine exposure to a variety of infectious diseases potentially important for native ungulates, livestock, and humans, serum samples from 114 (94 adults, 20 fawns) female white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) were collected during January 2000–03 from multiple locations in southeast (SE) and southwest (SW) Minnesota. Antibody prevalence was determined for the following pathogens: Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis, Leptospira interrogans (six serovars), Anaplasma marginale, Borrelia burgdorferi, Brucella abortus, epizootic hemorrhagic disease virus, and bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDV) types 1 and 2. Samples collected in 2001 were screened for antibodies against Anaplasma phagocytophilum, and whole blood was submitted for polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for A. phagocytophilum and B. burgdorferi. In addition, serum selenium concentrations were evaluated for samples collected during 2001–03. Antibody prevalence and selenium concentration were compared by age-class and geographic region. Antibodies to all of the infectious agents except A. marginale and B. abortus were detected; when detected, antibody prevalence was highest in adults. Deer collected from SE Minnesota had a higher antibody prevalence to B. burgdorferi than SW deer. Blood culture and PCR results for A. phagocytophilum and B. burgdorferi were negative. Antibodies against BVDV (combined types 1 and 2) were more prevalent (
2 = 3.617, P
0.029) in deer collected in SW (41%) than in SE (25%) Minnesota. No statistically significant differences in serum selenium concentrations were detected when data were analyzed by age-class or by geographic location.
Key words: Infectious disease, Minnesota, Odocoileus virginianus, selenium, serology, white-tailed deer.
Development of appropriate management recommendations requires identification of factors affecting health of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) populations. White-tailed deer can serve as sentinels for livestock and human diseases, making epidemiologic surveillance helpful in identifying potential exposure to diseases of economic and public health concern. Much of the information on white-tailed deer in Minnesota (MN) is based on data obtained from populations in the northern part of the state (Brinkman et al., 2004a, 2005; Swanson, 2005). Comparatively little is known about southern populations (Brinkman, 2003; Brinkman et al., 2004a, 2005; DePerno et al., 2000, 2003; Swanson, 2005). The geography and predominant land use differ markedly between the southwest (SW) and southeast (SE) portions of MN. The SW is intensively managed for agriculture with less than 10% permanent cover (Brinkman, 2003; DePerno et al., 2003), whereas the SE is largely forested with slopes and hillsides dominated by deciduous forests (Bigalke et al., 2002; DePerno et al., 2003). As habitat composition and land use influence movement of individuals and diseases across a landscape (Wiens 2001), these differences may impact deer health and survival. The potential impact of selenium deficiency, which may differ between geographic areas, also is of key interest in the upper Midwest (Custer et al., 2004). Deficiencies in selenium concentrations can lower deer productivity by negatively impacting overall herd health, fecundity, and survival (Ullrey et al., 1981; Fielder, 1986; McDowell et al., 1995). Selenium requirements of free-ranging white-tailed deer are not well documented, and baseline data from disparate wild deer populations are needed to understand the impact of selenium on white-tailed deer productivity.
Serum samples from female white-tailed deer (n = 114; 94 adults, 20 fawns) were collected during January 2000–03 from five locations in SE MN and four locations in SW MN (Table 1
). The SW study sites were comprised of 
85% agricultural lands characterized by intensive cultivation consisting mainly of corn and soybeans (Brinkman, 2003; DePerno et al., 2003). Less than 10% of the area had either permanent forest or grassland cover (Brinkman, 2003; DePerno et al., 2003). The topography of the SE sites consisted predominantly of rolling hills, stream-cut valleys, and forested hillsides (Bigalke et al., 2002; DePerno et al., 2003). Mean cattle (beef and dairy) densities within study sites in SW MN and SE MN were 19.38 animals/km2 (SE = 2.11) and 36.18 animals/km2 (SE = 2.93), respectively (National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2002).
|
Serologic testing for the selected pathogens was conducted at the Minnesota Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory (University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA). Serum antibody prevalence was determined from samples collected each year (2000–03) for the following pathogens: Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis (MAP), Leptospira interrogans (serovars canicola, grippotyphosa, hardjo, pomona, bratislava, icterohemorrhagica), Anaplasma marginale, Borrelia burgdorferi, epizootic hemorrhagic disease virus (EHDV), Brucella abortus, and bovine viral diarrhea virus type 1 (BVDV1). Test procedure positive threshold titers are listed in Table 2. Serologic testing for antibodies to bovine viral diarrhea virus type 2 (BVDV2) was performed using samples collected in 2002 and 2003. Samples collected in 2001 were screened for antibodies against Anaplasma phagocytophilum, which causes human granulocytic ehrlichiosis (HGE), and whole blood was submitted for polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to detect DNA for A. phagocytophilum and B. burgdorferi. For PCR positive deer, whole blood was used to inoculate Barbour-Stoenner-Kelly medium and HL 60 cells for culture of B. burgdorferi and A. phagocytophilum, respectively.
|
For each pathogen, antibody prevalence was compared by age-class (adult, fawn) and geographic region (SE, SW) using Chi-square analysis with Yates correction. Fisher’s exact test was performed if any cells had < 5 individuals. A P value 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Serum selenium concentrations were compared by age-class and geographic location using the Mann-Whitney Rank sum test with values of P 0.05 considered statistically significant.
Antibody titers were detected for all infectious agents except Anaplasma marginale and Brucella abortus (Table 2
). Although not statistically significant, antibody prevalence was consistently higher in adults compared to fawns for all agents except Leptospira spp. (Table 2). Antibodies against BVDV, B. burgdorferi, and Leptospira spp. were most prevalent, whereas numbers of deer with antibodies against EHDV, A. phagocytophilum, and MAP were low (Table 2). All tested deer were culture and PCR negative for B. burgdorferi and A. phagocytophilum.
Statistical differences in antibody prevalence between age-classes were not detected for any of the pathogens. Regional differences in antibody prevalence were detected for B. burgdorferi (2 = 20.94, P 0.001; Table 3); deer collected from the SE had a higher prevalence of antibody than SW deer. Positive antibody titers ranged from 320 to > 1,280. Antibodies against BVDV (combined types 1 and 2) were more prevalent (2 = 3.617, P 0.029) in deer collected in the SW (41%) than in SE deer (25%; Table 3). However, significant regional differences were not present when each BVDV type was evaluated independently. All deer that had antibodies against both BVDV1 and BVDV2 were from the SW. Although not significantly different, deer from the SW population had antibodies against three different Leptospira interrogans serovars (L. bratislava, L. pomona, L. grippotyphosa), whereas SE deer had antibodies detected against only one serovar (L. grippotyphosa) (Table 3).
|
In this study, we documented that deer from southern MN have antibodies to several infectious agents that have relevance to white-tailed deer, domestic animal, and public health. As expected, adult deer tended to have higher antibodies against these agents than fawns, presumably due to increased contact opportunity over time.
The pronounced regional difference in seroprevalence of antibodies against B. burgdorferi was likely related to the variability in habitat type between the two regions. The SE collection sites were more forested and had abundant ground cover that would provide suitable habitat for Ixodes scapularis. This is consistent with a previous study in east central MN that demonstrated dramatic variation in prevalence of B. burgdorferi antibodies in white-tailed deer based on the habitat suitability of the collection sites for Ixodes spp. (Gill et al., 1994).
Antibodies to both BVDV1 and BVDV2 were relatively high in both regions, indicating that deer are routinely exposed to this pathogen of cattle. Regional prevalence estimates for BVD in cattle from Minnesota are lacking; however, antibody prevalence in cattle in the United States ranges from 29% to 90%, with similar prevalence rates reported for beef and dairy cows (Houe, 2005). This variability may be due to differences in stocking density, management strategies, and vaccination practices. Experimentally, white-tailed deer are susceptible to BVDV infection (Van Campen et al., 1997) and can become persistently infected (Passler et al., 2007). Detection of antibodies in the serum, however, does not indicate a persistent infection.
Deer in SW MN were more likely to have antibodies to BVDV even though more cattle and cattle farms are present in SE MN (National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2002). In a similar analysis in Europe, BVDV antibody prevalence in wild cervids also was not related to cattle density (Frölich, 1995), but the type of cattle operation may be an important factor to consider. Management practices often differ considerably between beef and dairy herds. In this study, although cattle density was highest in the SE, it was predominately composed of dairy herds where cows are typically managed under more confined conditions (National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2002). In SW MN, there were more beef cattle, and with these animals, movements are generally less restricted to maximize grazing opportunities. The greater range of beef cattle could have allowed more opportunities for contact with deer in the SW despite the lower overall cattle density. The movement behavior of deer also may have contributed to the greater BVDV antibody prevalence seen in SW MN deer. Deer in SW MN have higher migration rates and longer dispersal distances compared to SE MN; it has been shown that dispersal distances of deer increase with decreasing forest cover (Brinkman et al., 2005; Long et al., 2005).
This study provided evidence of widespread exposure of southern MN white-tailed deer to L. interrogans. Previous antibody prevalence estimates for L. interrogans in MN white-tailed deer have ranged from 3% (Ingebrigtsen et al., 1986) to 43% in NW populations (Goyal et al., 1992). The latter estimate is similar to the 49% prevalence rate in an extensive study of mature cattle in the United States (Miller et al., 1991). In our study, 19% of deer were seropositive for L. interrogans; and this is similar to an overall antibody prevalence of 17.9% reported in cattle, pigs, and horses submitted to the Minnesota Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory between 1984 and 1986 (Kahn et al., 1991).
In previous studies of samples collected from NW MN deer populations, antibodies to serovars L. pomona and L. bratislava were most common (Goyal et al., 1992). However, in our study antibodies against L. grippotyphosa were observed most frequently, and only SW deer had antibodies against serovars L. pomona and L. bratislava. These variations may reflect regional differences between populations that could be related to disparities in land use. Overall antibody titers from the deer in this study were low, and there were no apparent differences between adults and fawns.
Antibodies to A. phagocytophilum were detected in only one deer. This low prevalence of antibodies is consistent with results from Wisconsin and Iowa where antibodies were reported in 8% and 0% of white-tailed deer tested (Belongia et al., 1997). Minnesota was classified as a brucellosis-free state in 1985 (Anonymous, 1985). The lack of antibodies against B. abortus is consistent with the brucellosis-free designation and with results from previous surveillance of white-tailed deer in MN (Ingebrigtsen et al., 1986) and other states (Davis, 1990). We did not detect evidence of exposure to A. marginale, and the low prevalence of antibody titers to EHD was not surprising given that this disease occurs infrequently in deer populations in northern latitudes (Nettles and Stallknecht, 1992). The low percentage of deer with antibodies against M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis is consistent with a previous study that examined fecal cultures from MN white-tailed deer living in proximity to dairy farms (Raizman et al., 2005).
The median serum selenium concentration for deer in this study appeared to be similar in both regions (SE, SW) and was in the acceptable range for livestock (McDowell et al., 1995). However, seven deer in the SW had serum selenium concentrations that would be considered deficient in cattle. The criteria used to define the selenium status of livestock may not be directly applicable to white-tailed deer. Farmed red deer (Cervus elaphus) in New Zealand appear to have lower selenium requirements than cattle in the same region (Grace et al., 2000). Furthermore, measurement of serum selenium concentration is most useful for identifying immediate deficiencies, whereas whole blood or liver are more suitable for determining selenium status over time (Wichtel, 1998).
The results from this study provide evidence that white-tailed deer in southern MN are exposed to a variety of pathogens, including those that can affect cattle and humans. Baseline data can provide valuable information on temporal changes that can be useful for disease surveillance.
Funding was provided by Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, South Dakota State University, Bluffland White-tails Association, Cottonwood County Game & Fish League, Minnesota Bowhunters, Inc., Minnesota Deer Hunters Association (Bend of the River, Des Moines Valley, Rum River, and South Metro Chapters), Minnesota State Archery Association, North Country Bowhunters Chapter of Safari Club International, and Whitetail Institute of North America. We thank the landowners in the Lake Benton, Walnut Grove, Redwood Falls, Zumbro Falls, Chatfield, Pleasant Grove, Dumfries, and Rushford areas who granted permission to access their land during deer capture. In addition, we thank P. Bauman and The Nature Conservancy for assistance. Also, we thank D. Carpenter for capture and aerial tracking assistance, J. Sievers, A. Vander Lugt, and R. Wersal for assistance with radiocollaring and data collection activities, and G. Hart for logistical assistance; we appreciate their hard work and invaluable contributions. We thank S. Larsen, B. Haroldson, and T. Kelly for reviewing an earlier version of this manuscript. Publication costs were provided by North Carolina State University.
4 Current address: Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources, Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences Program, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina 27603, USA 
5 Current address: Department of Biology and Wildlife, University of Alaska Fairbanks, 211 Irving 1, Fairbanks, Alaska 99775, USA
6 Current address: Hayden-Wing Associates, Environmental Consultants, PO Box 1689, Laramie, Wyoming 82073, USA
7 Current address: Pennsylvania Game Commission, Ligonier, Pennsylvania 15658, USA
ANONYMOUS, 1985. Minnesota is declared brucellosis-free. Hoard’s Dairyman 130: 196.
BELONGIA, E. A., K. D. REED, P. D. MITCHELL, C. P. KOLBERT, D. H. PERSING, J. S. GILL, AND J. J. KAZMIERCZAK. 1997. Prevalence of granulocytic Ehrlichia infection among white-tailed deer in Minnesota. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 35: 1465–1468.[Abstract]
BIGALKE, B. J., C. S. DEPERNO, J. A. JENKS, B. S. HAROLDSON, AND J. D. ERB. 2002. Mortality and movements of white-tailed deer and coyotes in southeast Minnesota. In Summaries of wildlife research findings 2001, M. W. Don Carlos, R. T. Eberhardt, R. O. Kimmel and M. S. Lenarz (eds.). Section of Wildlife, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, Minnesota, pp. 21–33.
BRINKMAN, T. J. 2003. Movement and mortality of white-tailed deer in southwest Minnesota. MS Thesis, South Dakota State University, Brookings, South Dakota, 149 pp.
———, J. A. JENKS, C. S. DEPERNO, AND B. S. HAROLDSON. 2004a. Survival of white-tailed deer in an intensively farmed region of Minnesota. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32: 726–731.
———, ———, ———, AND ———. 2004b. Clostridium perfringens type A in a free-ranging fawn? Prairie Naturalist 36: 181–185.
———, C. S. DEPERNO, J. A. JENKS, AND B. S. HAROLDSON. 2005. Movement of female white-tailed deer: Effects of climate and intensive row-crop agriculture. Journal of Wildlife Management 69: 1099–1111.
CUSTER, T. W., E. COX, AND B. GRAY. 2004. Trace elements in moose (Alces alces) found dead in northwestern Minnesota, USA. Science of the Total Environment 330: 81–87.[Medline]
DAVIS, D. S. 1990. Brucellosis in wildlife. In Animal brucellosis, K. Nielsen and J. R. Duncan (eds.). CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, pp. 321–334.
DEPERNO, C. S., B. S. HAROLDSON, AND J. D. ERB. 2000. Seasonal mortality and movements of white-tailed deer in the farmland zone of Minnesota. In Summaries of wildlife research findings 1999, Section of Wildlife, A. Berner, M. Lenarz and T. Eberhardt (eds.). Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, Minnesota, pp. 1–10.
———, ———, T. J. BRINKMAN, B. J. BIGALKE, C. C. SWANSON, I. L. LAJOIE, J. A. JENKS, J. D. ERB, AND R. G. OSBORN. 2003. Survival and home ranges of white-tailed deer in southern Minnesota. In Summaries of wildlife research findings 2002, M. W. Don Carlos, R. O. Kimmel, J. S. Lawrence and M. S. Lenarz (eds.). Summaries of Section of Wildlife, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, Minnesota, pp. 35–54.
———, B. J. BIGALKE, J. A. JENKS, B. S. HAROLDSON, AND R. G. OSBORN. 2005. Electrocution of an adult white-tailed deer. Prairie Naturalist 37: 47–49.
FIELDER, P. C. 1986. Implications of selenium levels in Washington mountain goats, mule deer, and rocky mountain elk. Northwest Science 60: 15–20.
FROLICH, K. 1995. Bovine virus diarrhea and mucosal disease in free-ranging and captive deer (Cervidae) in Germany. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 31: 247–250.[Abstract]
GILL, J. S., R. G. MCLEAN, R. B. SHRINER, AND R. C. JOHNSON. 1994. Serologic surveillance for the Lyme disease spirochete, Borrelia burgdorferi, in Minnesota by using white-tailed deer as sentinel animals. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 32: 444–451.
GOYAL, S. M., L. D. MECH, AND M. E. NELSON. 1992. Prevalence of antibody titers to Leptospira spp. in Minnesota white-tailed deer. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 28: 445–448.[Abstract]
GRACE, N. D., P. R. WILSON, W. J. THOMAS, AND R. M. MARCHANT. 2000. The effect of long-acting injectable selenium formulations on blood and liver selenium concentrations and live weights of red deer (Cervus elaphus). New Zealand Veterinary Journal 48: 53–56.[Medline]
HOUE, H. 2005. Risk assessment. In Bovine viral diarrhea virus diagnosis, management, and control, S. M. Goyal and J. F. Ridpath (eds.). Blackwell Publishing, Ames, Iowa, pp. 35–64.
INGEBRIGTSEN, D. K., J. R. LUDWIG, AND A. W. MCCLURKIN. 1986. Occurrence of antibodies to the etiologic agents of infectious bovine rhino-tracheitis, parainfluenza 3, leptospirosis, and brucellosis in white-tailed deer in Minnesota. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 22: 83–86.[Abstract]
KAHN, M. A., S. M. GOYAL, S. L. DIESCH, L. D. MECH, AND S. H. FRITTS. 1991. Seroepidemiology of leptospirosis in Minnesota wolves. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 27: 248–253.[Abstract]
LONG, E. S., D. R. DIEFENBACH, C. S. ROSENBERRY, B. D. WALLINGFORD, AND M. D. GRUND. 2005. Forest cover influences dispersal distance of white-tailed deer. Journal of Mammalogy 86: 623–629.
MCDOWELL, L. R., D. J. FORRESTER, S. B. LINDA, S. D. WRIGHT, AND N. S. WILKINSON. 1995. Selenium status of white-tailed deer in southern Florida. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 31: 205–211.[Abstract]
MILLER, D. A., M. A. WILSON, AND G. W. BERAN. 1991. Survey to estimate the prevalence of Leptospira interrogans infection in mature cattle in the United States. American Journal of Veterinary Research 52: 1761–1765.[Medline]
NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS SERVICE. 2002. 2002 census of agriculture—Volume 1, geographic area series. United States Department of Agriculture, http://www.nass.usda.gov:8080/Census. Accessed 6 July 2006.
NETTLES, V. F., AND D. E. STALLKNECHT. 1992. History and progress in the study of hemorrhagic disease of deer. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 57: 499–516.
PASSLER, T., P. H. WALZ, S. S. DITCHKOFF, M. D. GIVENS, H. S. MAXWELL, AND K. V. BROCK. 2007. Experimental persistent infection with bovine viral diarrhea virus in white-tailed deer. Veterinary Microbiology 122: 350–356.[Medline]
RAIZMAN, E. A., S. J. WELLS, P. A. JORDAN, G. D. DELGUIDICE, AND R. R. BEY. 2005. Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis from free-ranging deer and rabbits surrounding Minnesota dairy herds. Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research 69: 32–38.[Medline]
SWANSON, C. C. 2005. Movement and association of white-tailed deer in southwest Minnesota. MS Thesis, South Dakota State University, Brookings, South Dakota, 132 pp.
ULLREY, D. E., W. G. YOUATT, AND P. A. WHETTER. 1981. Muscle selenium concentrations in Michigan deer. Journal of Wildlife Management 45: 534–36.
VAN CAMPEN, H., E. S. WILLIAMS, E. EDWARDS, W. COOK, AND G. STOUT. 1997. Experimental infection of deer with bovine viral diarrhea virus. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 33: 567–573.[Abstract]
WICHTEL, J. J. 1998. A review of selenium deficiency in grazing ruminants Part 2: Towards a more rational approach to diagnosis and prevention. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 46: 54–58.[Medline]
WIENS, J. A. 2001. The landscape context of dispersal. In Dispersal, J. Clobert, E. Danchin, A. A. Dhondt and J. D. Nichols (eds.). Oxford University Press, New York, New York, pp. 96–109.
Received for publication 20 November 2006.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
