Experimental Deer-To-Deer Transmission of Mycobacterium bovis

Objective—To determine whether Mycobacterium bovis can be transmitted from experimentally infected deer to uninfected in-contact deer. Animals—Twenty-three 6-month-old white-tailed deer. Procedure—On day 0, M bovis (2 X 108 colony-forming units) was administered by intratonsillar instillation to 8 deer; 3 control deer received saline (0.9% NaCl) solution. Eight in-contact deer were comingled with inoculated deer from day 21. On day 120, inoculated deer were euthanatized and necropsied. On day 180, 4 in-contact deer were euthanatized, and 4 new incontact deer were introduced. On day 360, all in-contact deer were euthanatized. Rectal, oral, and nasal swab specimens and samples of hay, pelleted feed, water, and feces were collected for bacteriologic culture. Tissue specimens were also collected at necropsy for bacteriologic culture and histologic analysis. Results—On day 90, inoculated and in-contact deer developed delayed-type hypersensitivity (DTH) reactions to purified protein derivative of M bovis. Similarly, new in-contact deer developed DTH reactions by 100 days of contact with original in-contact deer. Tuberculous lesions in in-contact deer were most commonly detected in lungs and tracheobronchial and medial retropharyngeal lymph nodes. Mycobacterium bovis was isolated from nasal secretions and saliva from inoculated and in-contact deer, urine and feces from in-contact deer, and hay and pelleted feed. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Mycobacterium bovis is efficiently transmitted from experimentally infected deer to uninfected in-contact deer through nasal secretions, saliva, or contaminated feed. Wildlife management practices that result in unnatural gatherings of deer may enhance both direct and indirect transmission of M bovis.

Review of The Biology of Freshwater Wetlands: Biology of Habitats by Arnold G. van der Valko

Wetland ecology is a relatively new field that developed from an initial interest in a few direct benefits that wetlands provide to society. Consequently, much early scientific work was stimulated by economic returns from specific wetland services, such as production of peat and provision of habitat for economically valuable wildlife (e.g., waterfowl and furbearers). Over time, societal interest in wetlands broadened, and these unique habitats are now valued for many additional services, including some that bear non market value. Common examples include carbon sequestration, flood reduction, water purification, and aesthetics. The increased recognition of the importance of wetlands has generated a diversity of job opportunities in wetland ecology and management. Despite the increased knowledge base and enhanced job market, I am not aware of any institutions that offer specialty degrees in this new discipline. Indeed, relatively few institutions offer specific wetland ecology classes, with Arnold G. van der Valk and a few of his peers at other universities being notable exceptions.