Spatial and Temporal Spread of Bovine Tuberculosis in Wild White-Tailed Deer in Michigan

In 1975, a wild white-tailed deer infected with bovine tuberculosis was shot in the northeastern Lower Peninsula, Michigan. The shooting of a second infected deer in the same area in 1994 triggered ongoing disease surveillance in the region. By 2002, bovine tuberculosis had been confirmed in 12 Michigan counties: from 449 deer; two elk; 41 non-cervid wildlife; one captive cervid facility and 28 cattle herds. We analyzed geographic spread of disease since the surveillance began and investigated factors influencing the prevalence of disease within the infected area. These analyses reveal that 78 percent of tuberculous deer came from within a 1560 km2 'core' area, within which the prevalence of apparent disease averaged 2.5 percent. Prevalence declined dramatically outside of the core and was an order of magnitude lower 30 km from its boundary. This prevalence gradient was highly significant (P<0.0001) and did not alter over the 6 year surveillance period (P= 0.98). Within the core, deer density and supplemental feeding by hunters were positively and independently correlated with tuberculosis prevalence in deer. Together, these two factors explained 55 percent of the variation in prevalence. We conclude that bovine tuberculosis was already well established in the deer population in 1994, that the infected area has not expanded significantly since that time, and that deer over-abundance and food supplementation have both contributed to ongoing transmission of disease. Managers are currently enforcing prohibitions on deer feeding in the core and are working to lower deer numbers there through increased hunting pressure.

Regional differences in the spatial and temporal heterogeneity of oceanographic habitat used by Steller sea lions

Over the past three decades, the decline and altered spatial distribution of the western stock of Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) in Alaska have been attributed to changes in the distribution or abundance of their prey due to the cumulative effects of fisheries and environmental perturbations. During this period, dietary prey occurrence and diet diversity were related to population decline within metapopulation regions of the western stock of Steller sea lions, suggesting that environmental conditions may be variable among regions. The objective of this study, therefore, was to examine regional differences in the spatial and temporal heterogeneity of oceanographic habitat used by Steller sea lions within the context of recent measures of diet diversity and population trajectories. Habitat use was assessed by deploying satellite-depth recorders and satellite relay data loggers on juvenile Steller sea lions (n = 45) over a five-year period (2000–2004) within four regions of the western stock, including the western, central, and eastern Aleutian Islands, and central Gulf of Alaska. Areas used by sea lions during summer months (June, July, and August) were demarcated using satellite telemetry data and characterized by environmental variables (sea surface temperature [SST] and chlorophyll a [chl a]), which possibly serve as proxies for environmental processes or prey. Spatial patterns of SST diversity and Steller sea lion population trends among regions were fairly consistent with trends reported for diet studies, possibly indicating a link between environmental diversity, prey diversity, and distribution or abundance of Steller sea lions. Overall, maximum spatial heterogeneity coupled with minimal temporal variability of SST appeared to be beneficial for Steller sea lions. In contrast, these patterns were not consistent for chl a, and there appeared to be an ecological threshold. Understanding how Steller sea lions respond to measures of environmental heterogeneity will ultimately be useful for implementing ecosystem management approaches and developing additional conservation strategies.

THE THIRD QUI, AND SIX WAYS TO RECOGNIZE IT, or “WHO HAPPENS, MAECENAS?”

All Latin students eventually have a problem with qui. To solve it, they need a third qui in their quiver. The problem shows up when they advance into third year, transitioning from Caesar to Roman Comedy, or to the poets. The familiar “who” often leads to nonsense, and they are at a loss. There are three qui’s: the relative pronoun, the interrogative adjective, and the old ablative instrumental, e.g. 1. qui dixit, who spoke 2. qui vir, which man 3. illud qui, that thing by means of which It is the third that causes problems. So this article addresses the question “how do you tell qui from qui ?” There are six main ways to tell when to say “how,” “whereby,” or “the way” for qui: 1. The whereby/how qui is usually interrogative. 2. It is often marked further by being paired with a following quia: qui? quia “How . . . ? Because . . .” 3. The most frequent associated idea is of knowing, with a form of scire or gnoscere: qui scis, qui noveris? “How do you know?” 4. Qui followed immediately by an adverb or comparative is whereby/how/the way: qui minus quam . . . “How less than . . .” 5. The obvious noun antecedent is not a person, but a tool: machinas qui, “tools to __ with” (“with which to__”). 6. If the context is of giving or seeking, qui is instrumental, “how,” “a way,” “the means, “ e.g. da mi qui comparem “Give me the means to buy . . .” There is no antecedent.