Landscape Genetics of Raccoons (Procyon lotor) Associated with Ridges and Valleys of Pennsylvania: Implications for Oral Rabies Vaccination Programs

Raccoons are the reservoir for the raccoon rabies virus variant in the United States. To combat this threat, oral rabies vaccination (ORV) programs are conducted in many eastern states. To aid in these efforts, the genetic structure of raccoons (Procyon lotor) was assessed in southwestern Pennsylvania to determine if select geographic features (i.e., ridges and valleys) serve as corridors or hindrances to raccoon gene flow (e.g., movement) and, therefore, rabies virus trafficking in this physiographic region. Raccoon DNA samples (n = 185) were collected from one ridge site and two adjacent valleys in southwestern Pennsylvania (Westmoreland, Cambria, Fayette, and Somerset counties). Raccoon genetic structure within and among these study sites was characterized at nine microsatellite loci. Results indicated that there was little population subdivision among any sites sampled. Furthermore, analyses using a model-based clustering approach indicated one essentially panmictic population was present among all the raccoons sampled over a reasonably broad geographic area (e.g., sites up to 36 km apart). However, a signature of isolation by distance was detected, suggesting that widths of ORV zones are critical for success. Combined, these data indicate that geographic features within this landscape influence raccoon gene flow only to a limited extent, suggesting that ridges of this physiographic system will not provide substantial long-term natural barriers to rabies virus trafficking. These results may be of value for future ORV efforts in Pennsylvania and other eastern states with similar landscapes.

SIDE EFFECTS OF PERSISTENT TOXICANTS

As you can see from the general tenor of the printed program for this seminar, I am in the unenviable position of trying to discourage you from certain types of chemical control; but my assigned topic "Side Effects of Persistent Toxicants," implies that mission. However, my remarks may be somewhat anticlimax at this time, because it is now generally conceded that we need to reevaluate certain chemicals in control work and to restrict or severely curtail use of those that per¬sist for long periods in the environment. So let me detail my reasons for a somewhat negative attitude toward the use of the persistent hydrocarbons from my experience with the effects of these materials on birds. But first a few words of caution about control work in general, which so often disrupts natural processes and leads to new and unforseen difficulties. As an example, I think of the irruption of mice in the Klamath valley in northern California and southern Oregon in the late '50's. Intensive predator control, particularly of coyotes, but also of hawks and owls, was followed by a severe outbreak of mice in the spring of 1958. To combat the plague of mice, poisoned bait (1080 and zinc phosphide) was widely distributed in an area used by 500,000 waterfowl each spring. More than 3,000 geese were poisoned, so driv¬ing parties were organized to keep the geese off the treated fields. Here it seems conceivable that the whole chain of costly events--cost of the original and probably unnecessary predator control, economic loss to crops from the mouse outbreak, another poisoning campaign to combat the mice, loss of valuable waterfowl resources, and man-hours involved in flushing geese from the fields--might have been averted by a policy of not interfering with the original predator-prey relationship. This points to a dilemma we always face. (We create deplorable situations by clumsy interference with natural processes, then seek artificial cures to correct our mistakes.) For example, we spend millions of dollars in seeking cures for cancer, but do little or nothing about restricting the use of known or suspected carcinogens such as nicotine and DDT.