Observations on Some Natural-Focal Zoonoses in Alaska

In Alaska, as in arctic and subarctic Eurasia, important natural-focal zoonoses are rabies, brucellosis, tularemia, trichinosis, alveolar hydatid disease, cystic hydatid disease, and diphyllobothriasis. Most frequently affected are aboriginal peoples in villages within biocenoses that include the natural parasite-host assemblages. Pathogens are transmitted to man from wild animals and from dogs, which are important as synanthropic hosts. The prevalence and rate of transmission of certain pathogens in natural foci are related to the numerical density of small mammals, especially rodents, which may themselves be involved as hosts, and on which the numbers of their predators ultimately depend, such as is evident in the natural cycles of Echinococcus multilocularis and of rabies virus. Some pathogens in northern regions exhibit biological Characteristics that separate them from morphologically indistinguishable strains at lower latitudes (e.g., Trichinella spiralis and E. granulosus). Host-parasite relationships may also differ, as in the Arctic where rabies virus is maintained in populations of foxes, without significant involvement of mammals of other groups. Faunal interchanges during and after the Pleistocene period have influenced the distribution of parasite-host assemblages in Alaska.

Studies on Some North American Shrew Cestodes

In spite of the importance of the various species of shrews to the biotic community, several aspects of their ecology remain very incompletely known. The helminths parasitic in the more conspicuous small mammals in North America have been studied more or less completely, but those occurring in shrews have been largely disregarded. This situation is particularly inappropriate when one considers that shrews often constitute the most abundant mammalian group in a given area. We have attempted to secure an adequate amount of shrew helminth material for study, and it is the purpose of this paper to present observations resulting from this work.

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.