Avian Piscivores as Vectors for Myxobolus cerebralis in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem

Myxobolus cerebralis, the cause of whirling disease in salmonids, has dispersed to waters in 25 states within the USA, often by an unknown vector. Its incidence in Yellowstone cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarkii bouvieri within the highly protected environment of Yellowstone Lake, Yellowstone National Park, is a prime example. Given the local abundances of piscivorous birds, we sought to clarify their potential role in the dissemination of M. cerebralis. Six individuals from each of three bird species (American white pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos, double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus, and great blue heron Ardea herodias) were fed known-infected or uninfected rainbow trout O. mykiss. Fecal material produced during 10-d periods before and after feeding was collected to determine whether M. cerebralis could be detected and, if so, whether it remained viable after passage through the gastrointestinal tract of these birds. For all (100%) of the nine birds fed known-infected fish, fecal samples collected during days 1–4 after feeding tested positive for M. cerebralis by polymerase chain reaction. In addition, tubificid worms Tubifex tubifex that were fed fecal material from known-infected great blue herons produced triactinomyxons in laboratory cultures, confirming the persistent viability of the parasite. No triactinomyxons were produced from T. tubifex fed fecal material from known-infected American white pelicans or double-crested cormorants, indicating a potential loss of parasite viability in these species. Great blue herons have the ability to concentrate and release viable myxospores into shallow-water habitats that are highly suitable for T. tubifex, thereby supporting a positive feedback loop in which the proliferation of M. cerebralis is enhanced. The presence of avian piscivores as an important component of aquatic ecosystems should continue to be supported. However, given the distances traveled by great blue herons between rookeries and foraging areas in just days, any practices that unnaturally attract them may heighten the probability of M. cerebralis dispersal and proliferation within the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.

A NEW “PAROTRAP” ADAPTED FROM THE MAC TRAP FOR CAPTURING LIVE PARAKEETS IN THE FIELD

The Rose-ringed parakeet (Psittacula krameri [Scopdi]) has been reported (Roberts, 1974; Bashir, 1978; Beg, 1978; and DeGrazio, 1978) as a serious bird pest of maize, sunflower, rape seeds, and fruit crops, particularly citrus, mangoes, and guavas, in Pakistan. Estimated annual losses to maize grown for seed alone amount to about 97,000 tons, worth about Pak. Rs. 150 million or US $15 million (Roberts, 1978). Paradoxically, this handsome bright green parakeet is highly esteemed in the pet trade; and limited numbers are also marketed locally and sometimes exported to neighboring countries, particularly the Arab Gulf Emirates, as caged pets. Traditional control methods aimed at scaring or chasing birds from the crops, usually with noise-making devices, are costly; furthermore, they have largely been unsuccessful and time consuming because they require human patrolling before and after normal working hours. They provide at best only temporary relief. The aim of this study was to develop a new decoy trap based on the Modified Australian Crow Trap (MAC), which we propose to call the PAROTRAP, and to evaluate its effectiveness and potential in capturing live parakeets in the field as a possible solution to the parakeet problem, as well as promoting the economic exploitation of trapped parakeets for the pet trade. The study was undertaken during March and June 1979 as a part of the UNDP/FAO Project No. PAK/71/554, assisting Pakistan Vertebrate Pest Control Centre in developing and improving control techniques to prevent or reduce bird damage to important crops. Our earlier trials showed that parakeets could be induced to enter a conventionally designed MAC trap, and that after some time they learned how to escape from it. Therefore, a series of minor modifications were introduced and field tested.

BIRD CONTROL METHODS AND DEVICES--COMMENTS OF THE NATIONAL PEST CONTROL ASSOCIATION

It may be useful to review some of the considerations that go into recommendations concerning bird management. Later I will make some comments concerning specific methods and devices being used in or promoted for bird control work regardless of whether or not they are new. Members of the National Pest Control Association provide a variety of services, such as fumigation, termite control and general pest control which includes rodent control. There are eight such categories listed in our roster, but only one member in five provides every service listed. Bird control is a rather recent development and is the newest category of service to be listed in the NPCA roster where it appeared for the first time in 1959. As of September 1, 1966, 45% of our members' offices indicated that they were prepared to offer bird control service. Less than 40% did so in 1964. Why is it that more of our members do not declare themselves as ready to do bird control work? I believe the most common answer you would find is that bird control is not yet sufficiently established that they can provide a service comparable in quality to that which is provided against termites or cockroaches or rats. Our members simply do not want to jeopardize their reputation on methods that are not certain or are too complex. Others recognize the emotional reaction evidenced by much of the population concerning control of birds and do not want to become involved in work that might offend some of their clientele. Still others simply do not agree that birds are their responsibility.