Cystic Echinococcosis in the Arctic and Sub-Arctic

The northern biotype of Echinococcus granulosus occurs throughout the holarctic zones of tundra and taiga, from eastern Fennoscandia to the Bering Strait in Eurasia and in North America from arctic Alaska approximately to the northern border of the United States. The cycle of the cestode is complex in taiga at lower latitudes, because of the greater diversity of potential hosts. In the Arctic and Subarctic, however, four patterns of predator/prey relationships may be discerned. Two natural cycles involve the wolf and wild reindeer and the wolf and elk (moose), respectively. Where deer of the two species coexist, both are prey of the wolf; the interactions of the wolf and elk are here described on the basis of long-term observations made on Isle Royale (in Lake Superior near the southern limit of taiga), where only the wolf and elk serve as hosts for E. granulosus. A synanthropic cycle involving herding-dogs and domesticated reindeer caused hyperendemicity of cystic echinococcosis in arctic Eurasia, mainly in northeastern Siberia. The 4th pattern, a semi-synanthropic cycle, formerly existed in Alaska, wherein sled-dogs of the indigenous hunters became infected by consuming the lungs of wild reindeer. The sequence of changes in life-style inherent in the process of acculturation affected the occurrence of cystic echinococcosis among nomadic Iñupiat in arctic Alaska. When those people became sedentary, the environs of their early villages soon became severely contaminated by feces of dogs, and cases of cystic echinococcosis occurred. Compared to cystic echinococcosis caused by E. granulosus adapted to synanthropic hosts (dog and domestic ungulates), the infection produced by the northern biotype is relatively benign. 0fearly all diagnosed cases of cystic echinococcosis (> 300 in Alaska have occurred in indigenous people; only one fatality has been recorded (in a non-indigenous person). After sled-dogs were replaced by machines, cases have become rare in Alaska. A similar effect has been observed in Fennoscandia, in the Saami and domesticated reindeer. Recent records indicate tbat the prcvalence of cystic echinococcosis is increasing in Russia, suggesting that dogs are used there in herding.

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.

Provisioning Strategies of Antarctic Fur Seals and Chinstrap Penguins Produce Different Responses to Distribution of Common Prey and Habitat

Central-place foragers that must return to a breeding site to deliver food to offspring are faced with trade-offs between prey patch quality and distance from the colony. Among colonial animals, pinnipeds and seabirds may have different provisioning strategies, due to differences in their ability to travel and store energy. We compared the foraging areas of lactating Antarctic fur seals and chinstrap penguins breeding at Seal Island, Antarctica, to investigate whether they responded differently to the distribution of their prey (Antarctic krill and myctophid fish) and spatial heterogeneity in their habitat. Dense krill concentrations occurred in the shelf region near the colony. However, only brooding penguins, which are expected to be time-minimizers because they must return frequently with whole food for their chicks, foraged mainly in this proximal shelf region. Lactating fur seals and incubating penguins, which can make longer trips to increase energy gain per trip, and so are expected to be energy-maximizers, foraged in the more distant (>20 km from the island) slope and oceanic regions. The shelf region was characterized by more abundant, but lower-energy-content immature krill, whereas the slope and oceanic regions had less abundant but higher-energy-content gravid krill, as well as high-energy-content myctophids. Furthermore, krill in the shelf region undertook diurnal vertical migration, whereas those in the slope and oceanic regions stayed near the surface throughout the day, which may enhance the capture rate for visual predators. Therefore, we sug- gest that the energy-maximizers foraged in distant, but potentially more profitable feeding regions, while the time-minimizers foraged in closer, but potentially less profitable regions. Thus, time and energy constraints derived from different provisioning strategies may result in sympatric colonial predator species using different foraging areas, and as a result, some central-place foragers use sub- optimal foraging habitats, in terms of the quality or quantity of available prey.

Killer Whales and Marine Mammal Trends in The North Pacific—A Re-Examination of Evidence for Sequential Megafauna Collapse and the Prey-Switching Hypothesis

Springer et al. (2003) contend that sequential declines occurred in North Pacific populations of harbor and fur seals, Steller sea lions, and sea otters. They hypothesize that these were due to increased predation by killer whales, when industrial whaling’s removal of large whales as a supposed primary food source precipitated a prey switch. Using a regional approach, we reexamined whale catch data, killer whale predation observations, and the current biomass and trends of potential prey, and found little support for the prey-switching hypothesis. Large whale biomass in the Bering Sea did not decline as much as suggested by Springer et al., and much of the reduction occurred 50–100 yr ago, well before the declines of pinnipeds and sea otters began; thus, the need to switch prey starting in the 1970s is doubtful. With the sole exception that the sea otter decline followed the decline of pinnipeds, the reported declines were not in fact sequential. Given this, it is unlikely that a sequential megafaunal collapse from whales to sea otters occurred. The spatial and temporal patterns of pinniped and sea otter population trends are more complex than Springer et al. suggest, and are often inconsistent with their hypothesis. Populations remained stable or increased in many areas, despite extensive historical whaling and high killer whale abundance. Furthermore, observed killer whale predation has largely involved pinnipeds and small cetaceans; there is little evidence that large whales were ever a major prey item in high latitudes. Small cetaceans (ignored by Springer et al.) were likely abundant throughout the period. Overall, we suggest that the Springer et al. hypothesis represents a misleading and simplistic view of events and trophic relationships within this complex marine ecosystem.

HOME RANGES AND MOVEMENTS OF COYOTES IN THE NORTHERN CHIHUAHUAN DESERT

The coyote (Canis latrans) is among the most studied animals in North America. Because of its adaptability and success as a predator, the coyote has flourished and is still expanding its range. Coyotes can now be found throughout most of North America and south into Central America (Voight and Berg 1987). Studies in recent years have been extensive to understand the interrelationships of prey and coyotes (Shelton and Klindt 1974, Beckoff and Wells 1981), as well as demographic relationships (Davis et al. 1975, Knowlton and Stoddart 1978, Mitchell 1979, Bowen 1981) and feeding strategies (Todd and Keith 1976, Andelt et al. 1987, MacCracken and Hansen 1987, Gese et al. 1988a). With the advance of radio telemetry, researchers have investigated lifestyle characteristics spatially with home ranges or temporally with movements in relation to habitat requirements. Researchers have studied home ranges of coyotes in various regions of the United States (Livaitis and Shaw 1980, Andelt 1981, Springer 1982, Pyrah 1984, Gese et al. 1988a) and Canada (Bowen 1982). Some studies of home range were separated by season (Ozoga and Harger 1966) or relation to nearby food sources (Danner and Smith 1980). Home range analysis in relation to social interactions of coyotes has been either neglected, overlooked, or avoided. Gese et al. (1988a) recognized a transient class of coyote by home range size. Coyote social systems are very complex and can vary by season or locality in addition to some reports of group or pack systems (Hamlin and Schweitzer 1979, Beckoff and Wells 1981, Bowen 1981, Gese et al. 1988b). Coyotes maintain communication with conspecifics through vocal and olfactory signals (Lehner 1987, Bowen and McTaggert Cowan 1980). Social interactions may be by far the most complex and least understood aspect related to coyote ecology. Coyote movements can be related to many factors including food, water, cover, and social interactions. Movements in relation to food sources are well documented (Fitch 1948, Todd and Keith 1976, Danner and Smith 1980) although reports on movements in relation to water have not been reported, probably because of limited research in desert situations. There has been some mention of coyotes' movements in relation to cover (Wells and Beckoff 1982). The objectives of this study were to delineate annual and seasonal home ranges, movements, and habitat use of coyotes in the northern Chihuahuan desert.