Prevalence of Pathogenic Enteric Bacteria in Wild Birds
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PREVALENCE OF PATHOGENIC ENTERIC BACTERIA IN WILD BIRDS ASSOCIATED WITH AGRICULTURE IN HUMBOLDT COUNTY, CALIFORNIA By Krysta H. Rogers A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of Humboldt State University In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Masters of Science In Natural Resources: Wildlife May 2006 PREVALENCE OF PATHOGENIC ENTERIC BACTERIA IN WILD BIRDS ASSOCIATED WITH AGRICULTURE IN HUMBOLDT COUNTY, CALIFORNIA by (Note: this page is suppose to be prepared by the Graduate Secretary in NR) Krysta H. Rogers Approved by the Master's Thesis Committee: Dr. Richard Botzler, Major Professor Date Dr. Mathew Johnson, Committee Member Date Dr. Michael Bowes, Committee Member Date Dr. Garry Hendrickson, Graduate Coordinator Date Donna E. Schafer, Dean for Research and Graduate Studies Date ABSTRACT PREVALENCE OF PATHOGENIC ENTERIC BACTERIA IN WILD BIRDS ASSOCIATED WITH AGRICULTURE IN HUMBOLDT COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Krysta H. Rogers Cloacal and fecal samples of 243 wild birds, including 65 house sparrows (Passer domesticus), 29 white-crowned sparrows (Zonotrichia leucophrys), 16 Brewer’s blackbirds (Euphagus cyanocephalus), 43 red-winged blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus), 56 brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater), and 34 European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) were sampled for potentially pathogenic bacteria between July 2002 and February 2004, on five dairy farms in coastal Humboldt County, California (USA). Thirty-seven bacterial species in 14 genera were isolated from wild birds. Escherichia coli (93/243; 38%), Pantoea spp. (41/243; 17%), Enterobacter spp. (39/243; 16%), Yersinia spp. (29/243; 12%), and Citrobacter spp. (27/243; 11%) were the most prevalent bacterial groups recovered from wild birds. Bacterial species composition varied between bird species, farms, and seasons. Fecal samples from 100 dairy cattle on the five farms also were sampled for pathogenic enteric bacteria during November 2002 and April 2004. Twenty-four bacterial species in 13 genera were recovered from cattle. Escherichia coli (88/100; 88%), Citrobacter spp. (18/100; 18%), Aeromonas hydrophila (13/100; 13%), Proteus vulgaris (13/100; 13%), and Citrobacter braakii (11/100; 11%) were the most prevalent bacteria isolated from cattle. Nineteen bacterial species in 10 genera were recovered from both the 243 wild birds and 100 dairy cattle. Eleven of these 19 bacterial iii species had the same API 20E code represented in both birds and cattle. This suggests that there is a potential for bacterial transmission between birds and cattle. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I thank the Mason, O’Neil, Pialorsi, Santos, and Vevoda families, on whose farms I spent numerous hours and days catching birds. Without their kindness and support, this research would not have been possible. I thank my committee members R. Botzler, M. Bowes, and M. Johnson for their comments and input on this manuscript. In particular, I thank my committee chair, R. Botzler, for his invaluable support and guidance through my many years of education and research. I thank my fellow graduate students for their help in the field and in the lab, B. Acord, M. Gabriel, C. Steele, and G. Wengert. I also would like to thank M. Early for his time and expertise while building the modified Australian crow trap and for his help in transporting it to the field. Additionally, I thank T. Danufsky for enabling me to use some of her lab space. Finally, I would like to thank my mother, for her loving support and financial help during my many, many years of education. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT......................................................................................................................iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..............................................................................................v TABLE OF CONTENTS..................................................................................................vi LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................viii LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... x LIST OF APPENDICES................................................................................................... xi INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1 METHODS ....................................................................................................................... 6 Study Area ................................................................................................................. 6 Sample Collection...................................................................................................... 6 Birds.................................................................................................................. 6 Livestock........................................................................................................... 9 Bacterial isolation ............................................................................................. 9 Statistical Analysis................................................................................................... 10 RESULTS .........................................................................................................................12 Birds......................................................................................................................... 12 Cattle........................................................................................................................ 21 Birds and Cattle........................................................................................................ 25 DISCUSSION...................................................................................................................28 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................37 vi TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Page LITERATURE CITED .....................................................................................................38 PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS................................................................................42 APPENDIX A...................................................................................................................43 APPENDIX B ...................................................................................................................46 vii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Attributes of the 5 dairy farms on which wild birds and cattle were sampled for potentially pathogenic enteric bacteria between July 2002 and April 2004 in Humboldt County, California. ...................................................................................8 2 Prevalence (number positive/total tested) of enteric bacteria isolated from the 243 wild birds captured on five dairy farms located in western Humboldt County, California between July 2002 and February 2004.......................................13 3 Selected enteric bacteria isolated from 243 wild birds on each of the five dairy farms, Humboldt County, California, between July 2002 and February 2004 and the significance of the difference in prevalence between farms.........................15 4 Prevalence of selected enteric bacteria isolated from the six wild bird species captured on five dairy farms between July 2002 and February 2004 in Humboldt County, California, and the significance of the difference in prevalence between bird species................................................................................17 5 Prevalence of enteric bacteria with significant seasonal differences isolated from the wild birds captured on five dairy farms between July 2002 and February 2004 in Humboldt County, California........................................................20 6 Prevalence (number positive/total tested) of enteric bacteria sampled on five dairy farms located in western Humboldt County, California, between November 2002 and April 2004. ...............................................................................22 7 Prevalence of selected enteric bacteria isolated from 100 dairy cattle sampled on each of the five dairy farms located in western Humboldt County, California, between November 2002 and April 2004 and the significance of the difference in prevalence between farms. ...................................................................23 8 Prevalence (number positive/total tested) of selected enteric bacteria isolated from both wild birds and dairy cattle on five dairy farms located in western Humboldt County, California, between July 2002 and April 2004...........................24 9 Number of identical API codes for the same bacterial species recorded in both birds and cattle out of the total number of API codes recorded for a given bacterial species.........................................................................................................26 viii LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED) Table Page 10 Prevalence (number positive/total tested) of enteric bacteria with significant differences in prevalence between the wild birds and dairy cattle sampled on each of five dairy farms located in western Humboldt County, California, between July 2002 and April 2004. ...........................................................................28 ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Location of 5 dairy farms on which 243 wild birds and 100 cattle were sampled for potentially pathogenic enteric bacteria between