DOCSLIB.ORG

Red and Fallow Deer Determine the Density of Ixodes Ricinus Nymphs Containing Anaplasma Phagocytophilum

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Red and Fallow Deer Determine the Density of Ixodes Ricinus Nymphs Containing Anaplasma Phagocytophilum Red and Fallow Deer Determine the Density of Ixodes Ricinus Nymphs Containing Anaplasma Phagocytophilum Katsuhisa Takumi ( [email protected] ) Centre for Zoonoses and Environmental Microbiology Centre for Infectious Disease Control National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) Bilthoven The Netherlands Tim Hofmeester Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Faculty of Natural Resources and Agricultural Sciences Hein Sprong Centre for Zoonoses and Environmental Microbiology Centre for Infectious Disease Control National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) Bilthoven The Netherlands Research Keywords: Ixodes ricinus nymphs, Anaplasma phagocytophilum, phagocytophilum, anaplasmosis Posted Date: October 26th, 2020 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-96286/v1 License: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Read Full License Version of Record: A version of this preprint was published on January 19th, 2021. See the published version at https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-020-04567-4. 1 Red and fallow deer determine the density of Ixodes ricinus 2 nymphs containing Anaplasma phagocytophilum 1, 2 1 3 Katsuhisa Takumi ✉, Tim R. Hofmeester , and Hein Sprong 4 1 Centre for Zoonoses and Environmental Microbiology Centre for Infectious Disease Control 5 National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) Bilthoven The Netherlands 6 2 Department of Wildlife Fish and Environmental Studies Swedish University of Agricultural 7 Sciences Skogsmarksgränd 7 907 36 Umeå Sweden 8 ✉ Correspondence: Katsuhisa Takumi <[email protected]> 9 1 10 Abstract 11 Background: The density of Ixodes ricinus nymphs infected with Anaplasma phagocytophilum 12 is one of the parameters that determines the risk for humans and domesticated animals to 13 contract anaplasmosis. For this, I. ricinus larvae need to take a blood meal from free-ranging 14 ungulates, which are competent hosts for A. phagocytophilum. 15 Methods: Here, we compared the contribution of four free-ranging ungulate species, red deer 16 (Cervus elaphus), fallow deer (Dama dama), roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), and wild boar (Sus 17 scrofa) to A. phagocytophilum infections in nymphs. We used a combination of camera and live 18 trapping to quantify the relative availability of vertebrate hosts to questing ticks in nineteen 19 Dutch forest sites. Additionally, we collected questing I. ricinus nymphs and tested these for the 20 presence of A. phagocytophilum. Furthermore, we explored two potential mechanisms that could 21 explain differences between species: 1) differences in larval burden, which we based on data 22 from published studies, and 2) differences in associations with other, non-competent hosts. 23 Results: Principal component analysis indicated that the density of A. phagocytophilum infected 24 nymphs (DIN) was higher in forest sites with high availability of red and fallow deer, and to a 25 lesser degree roe deer. Initial results suggest that these differences are not a result of differences 26 in larval burden, but rather differences in associations with other species or other ecological 27 factors. 28 Conclusions: These results indicate that the risk for contracting anaplasmosis in the Netherlands 29 is likely highest in the few areas where red and fallow deer are present. Future studies are needed 30 to explore the mechanisms behind this association. 2 31 Background 32 Anaplasma phagocytophilum is the causative agent of human granulocytic anaplasmosis (HGA), 33 and it also causes disease and economic losses in domesticated animals [1–3]. The first human 34 case in Europe was reported in 1995. Since, HGA cases have only been occasionally reported 35 throughout Europe [4]. It is unclear to what extent HGA poses a health burden in Europe: 36 epidemiological data on the disease incidence and disease burden is either incomplete or lacking 37 from most European countries [2]. The non-specificity of the reported symptoms, poor 38 diagnostic tools and lack of awareness of public health professionals may also complicate these 39 estimations [5]. Anaplasma phagocytophilum is transmitted by the bite of an infected tick [6,7]. 40 The main vector in Europe is Ixodes ricinus, which also transmits Borrelia burgdorferi sensu 41 lato, the causative agent of Lyme borreliosis, and several other pathogens [8]. The geographic 42 spread and density of I. ricinus infected with A. phagocytophilum is an important determinant of 43 the disease risk [9,10]. Anaplasma phagocytophilum seems to appear in all countries across 44 Europe with infection prevalence in nymphs (NIP) varying between and within countries from 0 45 to 25% [1]. Understanding which factors determine the spatial and temporal distribution of I. 46 ricinus infected with A. phagocytophilum is needed for risk assessments and for formulating 47 possible intervention strategies. 48 Variations in the density of questing I. ricinus infected with A. phagocytophilum (DIN) have 49 partly been attributed to environmental factors such as differences in weather conditions [11,12], 50 habitat characteristics [13], as well as vertebrate communities [14]. Whereas small mammals and 51 birds are considered to feed the majority of immature I. ricinus, ungulates act as their main 52 propagation host [15]. It is however, still unclear which host species form the main reservoir for 53 A. phagocytophilum, and therefore contribute most to the density of infected ticks. Anaplasma 3 54 phagocytophilum has been found to infect many vertebrate species [1], but its genetic diversity 55 indicates that there are multiple genetic variants, or ecotypes, with distinct, but overlapping 56 transmission cycles, pathogenicity or geographical origin [16–18]. A variety of wildlife species, 57 like red deer (Cervus elaphus), fallow deer (Dama dama) wild boar (Sus scrofa), and European 58 hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus), are harbouring A. phagocytophilum variants that can cause 59 disease in humans and domesticated animals, whereas roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), rodents 60 and birds seem to carry genetic variants that have until now not been associated with human 61 disease [17]. 62 About two-thirds of tick bites reported in the Netherlands are I. ricinus nymphs [19]. Therefore, 63 the density of questing nymphs infected with A. phagocytophilum (DIN) is an important 64 ecological parameter that, together with the level of human exposure, determines tick-borne 65 disease risk [9,20]. The DIN is calculated by multiplying the density of questing I. ricinus 66 nymphs (DON) by nymphal infection prevalence (NIP). The transmission of A. phagocytophilum 67 predominantly relies on horizontal transmission between ticks and vertebrate hosts and on 68 transstadial transmission in its vectors, as vertical (transovarial) transmission has not been 69 documented for I. ricinus. Therefore, an I. ricinus larvae needs to take a blood meal from an 70 infected vertebrate host to become an infected I. ricinus nymph. The availability of (infected) 71 vertebrates to questing larvae generally drives the density of (infected) I. ricinus nymphs 72 [14,21,22]. 73 Using data from a cross-sectional study estimating the availability of hosts with camera and live 74 traps in nineteen Dutch forest sites, we quantified a moment when a questing tick encounters an 75 ungulate, the probability of this event predicts both I. ricinus nymphal density, and A. 76 phagocytophilum DIN [14]. However, the reported association for A. phagocytophilum DIN left 4 77 a relatively large proportion of the variation among sites unexplained, which could be due to the 78 grouping of four ungulate species. The group of ungulates considered consisted of four species 79 that differed in their ecology and potentially in their ability as hosts for I. ricinus and A. 80 phagocytophilum. 81 Here, we present a re-analysis of the A. phagocytophilum data from the cross-sectional study to 82 disentangle the role of the four ungulate species in determining A. phagocytophilum DIN. We 83 first applied a principal component analysis to the camera and live trapping data to test if 84 availability of any of the four ungulate species or combinations of species was associated with A. 85 phagocytophilum DIN. Second, we used simple mathematical models to explore two potential 86 mechanisms that could explain differences between species: 1) differences in I. ricinus larval 87 burden, and 2) potential associations of the different ungulate species with alternative 88 incompetent host species. 89 Methods 90 Cross-sectional study 91 We made use of data from an extensive field survey that was carried out in nineteen 1-ha sites 92 located in forested areas in the Netherlands in 2013 and 2014. Data were collected on the density 93 of questing I. ricinus (blanket dragging), vertebrate communities (camera and live trapping), and 94 on the infection rates of tick-borne pathogens (qPCR detection). The sites, methodologies, and 95 the data have been described elsewhere as well as a series of detailed analyses [14,22–24]. 5 96 Host attribution 97 We arranged the encounter probabilities for all forest sites (n=19) and vertebrate species (n=32) 98 into a matrix having 19 rows and 32 columns. We further arranged A. 19×32 99 phagocytophilum퐀 ∈ DIN ℝ into a vector matching the order of the forest sites along the rows of . 100 To attribute A. phagocytophilum DIN푏 to an assemblage of 32 vertebrate species, we factored the퐀 101 matrix into two orthogonal matrices 102 퐀 19×19 32×32 1 2 19 1 2 32 103 and a diagonal퐔 matrix = [푢 , 푢 , … , 푢 ] ∈with ℝ the singular and 퐕 values = [푣 , 푣 , … , 푣 ] ∈ ℝ and the 19×32 104 remaining entries equal횺 to ∈ zero. ℝ Theorem 2.5.2 [25] proves that휎1 ≥ 휎2 … ≥ 휎19. The≥ 0 column vectors 푇 105 and are principal components, also known as singular vectors.퐀 = 퐔횺퐕 106 The푢푖 A. 푣phagocytophilum푖 DIN increased at each forest site due to the first principal components 107 by the amount (Theorem 5.5.1 [25]) 108 푢1 ⋅ 푏 19 퐀푣1 ∈ ℝ . (1) 109 We attributed Eq.(1) to roe deer because휎1 the highest contribution from the first principal 110 component comes from roe deer.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ohio Birding Checklist with Difficulty Codes Daily/Year/Life
    Ohio Birding Checklist with ____ Common Merganser 2 ____ Belted Kingfisher 1 ____ Louisiana Waterthrush 2 ____ Red-breasted Merganser 1 ____ Red-headed Woodpecker 2 ____ Northern Waterthrush 2 Difficulty Codes ____ Ruddy Duck 1 ____ Red-bellied Woodpecker 1 ____ Blue-winged Warbler 1 ____ Wild Turkey 2 ____ Yellow-bellied Sapsucker 2 ____ Black-and-white Warbler 1 Daily/Year/Life ________________ ____ Pied-billed Grebe 1 ____ Downy Woodpecker 1 ____ Prothonotary Warbler 2 ____ Horned Grebe 1 ____ Hairy Woodpecker 1 ____ Tennessee Warbler 2 This checklist is arranged in three sections, each ____ Rock Pigeon 1 ____ Northern Flicker 1 ____ Nashville Warbler 1 corresponding to a pair of difficulty codes. The ____ Mourning Dove 1 ____ Pileated Woodpecker 1 ____ Kentucky Warbler 2 six codes/descriptions are based primarily on the ____ Yellow-billed Cuckoo 2 ____ American Kestrel 1 ____ Common Yellowthroat 1 collective experience of Greg Miller and Dan ____ Common Nighthawk 2 ____ Eastern Wood-Pewee 2 ____ Hooded Warbler 1 Sanders. Overall abundance and ease of ____ Chimney Swift 1 ____ Acadian Flycatcher 2 ____ American Redstart 1 identification have been factored into each of the ____ Ruby-throated Hummingbird 1 ____ Willow Flycatcher 2 ____ Cape May Warbler 2 six codes and are as follows: ____ Virginia Rail 2 ____ Least Flycatcher 1 ____ Cerulean Warbler 2 ____ Sora 1 ____ Eastern Phoebe 1 ____ Northern Parula 2 Easier to See Birds ____ Common Gallinule 2 ____ Great Crested Flycatcher 1 ____ Magnolia Warbler 1 1. Readily found within expected habitat ____ American Coot 1 ____ Eastern Kingbird 1 ____ Bay-breasted Warbler 2 during at least one season of the year.
    [Show full text]
  • Effect of Weather Conditions on the Spring Migration of Eurasian Woodcock and Consequences for Breeding
    Ibis (2018) doi: 10.1111/ibi.12657 Effect of weather conditions on the spring migration of Eurasian Woodcock and consequences for breeding KEVIN LE REST,1* ANDREW HOODLESS,2 CHRISTOPHER HEWARD,2 JEAN-LOUIS CAZENAVE3 & YVES FERRAND1 1Office National de la Chasse et de la Faune Sauvage, 8 boulevard Albert Einstein, Nantes, 44300, France 2Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust, Burgate Manor, Fordingbridge, Hampshire SP6 1EF, UK 3Club National des Becassiers, 105 rue Louis Pergaud, Villeneuve, Champniers, 16430, France Migration is a critical period of time with fitness consequences for birds. The develop- ment of tracking technologies now allows researchers to examine how different aspects of bird migration affect population dynamics. Weather conditions experienced during migration are expected to influence movements and, subsequently, the timing of arrival and the energetic costs involved. We analysed satellite-tracking data from 68 Eurasian Woodcock Scolopax rusticola fitted with Argos satellite tags in the British Isles and France (2012–17). First, we evaluated the effect of weather conditions (temperature, humidity, wind speed and direction, atmospheric stability and visibility) on migration movements of individuals. Then we investigated the consequences for breeding success (age ratio) and brood precocity (early-brood ratio) population-level indices while accounting for cli- matic variables on the breeding grounds. Air temperature, wind and relative humidity were the main variables related to migration movements, with high temperatures and northward winds greatly increasing the probability of onward flights, whereas a trend towards greater humidity over 4 days decreased the probability of movement. Breeding success was mostly affected by climatic variables on the breeding grounds. The propor- tion of juveniles in autumn was negatively correlated with temperature in May, but posi- tively correlated with precipitation in June and July.
    [Show full text]
  • Migration Timing, Routes, and Connectivity of Eurasian Woodcock Wintering in Britain and Ireland
    Migration Timing, Routes, and Connectivity of Eurasian Woodcock Wintering in Britain and Ireland ANDREW N. HOODLESS,1 Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust, Burgate Manor, Fordingbridge, Hampshire SP6 1EF, UK CHRISTOPHER J. HEWARD, Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust, Burgate Manor, Fordingbridge, Hampshire SP6 1EF, UK ABSTRACT Migration represents a critical time in the annual cycle of Eurasian woodcock (Scolopax rusticola), with poten- tial consequences for individual fitness and survival. In October–December, Eurasian woodcock migrate from breeding grounds in northern Eurasia over thousands of kilometres to western Europe, returning in March–May. The species is widely hunted in Europe, with 2.3–3.5 million individuals shot per year; hence, an understanding of the timing of migra- tion and routes taken is an essential part of developing sustainable flyway management. Our aims were to determine the timing and migration routes of Eurasian woodcock wintering in Britain and Ireland, and to assess the degree of connec- tivity between breeding and wintering sites. We present data from 52 Eurasian woodcock fitted with satellite tags in late winter 2012–2016, which indicate that the timing of spring departure varied annually and was positively correlated with temperature, with a mean departure date of 26 March (± 1.4 days SE). Spring migration distances averaged 2,851 ± 165 km (SE), with individuals typically making 5 stopovers. The majority of our sample of tagged Eurasian woodcock migrated to breeding sites in northwestern Russia (54%), with smaller proportions breeding in Denmark, Scandinavia, and Finland (29%); Poland, Latvia, and Belarus (9.5%); and central Russia (7.5%). The accumulated migration routes of tagged individ- uals suggest a main flyway for Eurasian woodcock wintering in Britain and Ireland through Belgium, the Netherlands, and Germany, and then dividing to pass through the countries immediately north and south of the Baltic Sea.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Illegal Killing and Taking of Birds in Northern and Central Europe and the Caucasus
    Review of illegal killing and taking of birds in Northern and Central Europe and the Caucasus Overview of main outputs of the project The information collated and analysed during this project has been summarised in a variety of outputs: 1. This full report Presenting all the aspects of the project at regional and national levels http://www.birdlife.org/illegal-killing 2. Scientific paper Presenting results of the regional assessment of scope and scale of illegal killing and taking of birds in Northern and Central Europe and the Caucasus1 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bird-conservation-international 3. Legislation country factsheets Presenting a review of national legislation on hunting, trapping and trading of birds in each assessed country http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/country (under ‘resources’ tab) 4. ‘The Killing 2.0’ Layman’s report Short communications publication for publicity purposes with some key headlines of the results of the project and the previous one focussing on the Mediterranean region http://www.birdlife.org/illegal-killing Credits of front cover pictures 1 2 3 4 1 Hen harrier Circus cyaneus © RSPB 2 Illegal trapping of Hen Harrier in the UK © RSPB 3 Common Coot (Fulica atra) © MISIK 4 Illegal trade of waterbirds illegally killed in Azerbaijan © AOS Citation of the report BirdLife International (2017) Review of illegal killing and taking of birds in Northern and Central Europe and the Caucasus. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International. 1 Paper in revision process for publication in Bird Conservation International in October 2017 when this report is released 1 Executive Summary The illegal killing and taking of wild birds remains a major threat on a global scale.
    [Show full text]
  • Survival Rates of Russian Woodcocks
    Proceedings of an International Symposium of the Wetlands International Woodcock and Snipe Specialist Group Survival rates of Russian Woodcocks Isabelle Bauthian, Museum national d’histoire naturelle, Centre de recherches sur la biologie des populations d’oiseaux, 55 rue Buffon, 75005 Paris, France. E-mail: [email protected] Ivan Iljinsky, State University of St Petersburg, Russia. E-mail: [email protected] Sergei Fokin, State Informational-Analytical Center of Game Animals and Environment Group. Woodcock, Teterinsky Lane, 18, build. 8, 109004 Moscow, Russia. E-mail: [email protected] Romain Julliard, Museum national d’histoire naturelle, Centre de recherches sur la biologie des populations d’oiseaux, 55 rue Buffon, 75005 Paris, France. E-mail: [email protected] François Gossmann, Office national de la chasse et de la faune sauvage, 53 rue Russeil, 44 000 Nantes, France. E-mail: [email protected] Yves Ferrand, Office national de la chasse et de la faune sauvage, BP 20 - 78612 Le-Perray-en-Yvelines Cedex, France. E-mail: [email protected] We analysed 324 recoveries from 2,817 Russian Woodcocks ringed as adult or yearling in two areas in Russia (Moscow and St Petersburg). We suspected that birds belonging to these two areas may experience different hunting pressure or climatic conditions, and thus exhibit different demographic parameters. To test this hypothesis, we analysed spatial and temporal distribution of recoveries, and performed a ringing-recovery analysis to estimate possible survival differences between these two areas. We used methods developed by Brownie et al. in 1985. We found differences in temporal variations of the age ratio between the two ringing areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Alpha Codes for 2168 Bird Species (And 113 Non-Species Taxa) in Accordance with the 62Nd AOU Supplement (2021), Sorted Taxonomically
    Four-letter (English Name) and Six-letter (Scientific Name) Alpha Codes for 2168 Bird Species (and 113 Non-Species Taxa) in accordance with the 62nd AOU Supplement (2021), sorted taxonomically Prepared by Peter Pyle and David F. DeSante The Institute for Bird Populations www.birdpop.org ENGLISH NAME 4-LETTER CODE SCIENTIFIC NAME 6-LETTER CODE Highland Tinamou HITI Nothocercus bonapartei NOTBON Great Tinamou GRTI Tinamus major TINMAJ Little Tinamou LITI Crypturellus soui CRYSOU Thicket Tinamou THTI Crypturellus cinnamomeus CRYCIN Slaty-breasted Tinamou SBTI Crypturellus boucardi CRYBOU Choco Tinamou CHTI Crypturellus kerriae CRYKER White-faced Whistling-Duck WFWD Dendrocygna viduata DENVID Black-bellied Whistling-Duck BBWD Dendrocygna autumnalis DENAUT West Indian Whistling-Duck WIWD Dendrocygna arborea DENARB Fulvous Whistling-Duck FUWD Dendrocygna bicolor DENBIC Emperor Goose EMGO Anser canagicus ANSCAN Snow Goose SNGO Anser caerulescens ANSCAE + Lesser Snow Goose White-morph LSGW Anser caerulescens caerulescens ANSCCA + Lesser Snow Goose Intermediate-morph LSGI Anser caerulescens caerulescens ANSCCA + Lesser Snow Goose Blue-morph LSGB Anser caerulescens caerulescens ANSCCA + Greater Snow Goose White-morph GSGW Anser caerulescens atlantica ANSCAT + Greater Snow Goose Intermediate-morph GSGI Anser caerulescens atlantica ANSCAT + Greater Snow Goose Blue-morph GSGB Anser caerulescens atlantica ANSCAT + Snow X Ross's Goose Hybrid SRGH Anser caerulescens x rossii ANSCAR + Snow/Ross's Goose SRGO Anser caerulescens/rossii ANSCRO Ross's Goose
    [Show full text]
  • Iceland Trip Report 2015
    Iceland Trip Report May 27 to June 5, 2015 (10 days) Trip report compiled by Tour Leader Gaukur Hjartarson Iceland May & June 2015 Tour Summary May 27: The tour leader picked up all five participants at Keflavík International Airport at noon. The tour started with a known rarity at Keflavík, namely an adult drake White-winged Scoter, on the way from the pick-up site to a nearby restaurant for lunch. After lunch we scanned the Garðskagi peninsula near the international airport at Keflavík. We picked up many of the common local birds, including several Manx Shearwaters and a Purple Sandpiper. Luckily we also discovered two vagrants near Garður and had good views of a beautiful male Lapland Longspur and a Canada Goose. We then continued birding along the road to our first accommodation at Borgarnes. At Akranes we managed to see a vagrant Common Swift that had been seen there for some days. After finishing dinner at our hotel we made an evening tour to search for Eurasian Woodcocks. On the way to the site we saw a distant adult White-tailed Eagle and some Common Shelducks. We then managed to find a single Woodcock at an expected site despite some extremely cold weather. On the first day we saw a total of 45 species of birds. Photo 1. White-winged Scoter, Keflavík. Photo: Merilyn Browne. May 28: On the second day we left Borgarnes and drove to the Snæfellsnes peninsula. The day started very well with good views of an immature White-tailed Eagle near the road at Mýrar.
    [Show full text]
  • Eurasian Woodcock Scolopax Rusticola
    Key concepts of Article 7(4): Version 2008 Species no. 50: Eurasian Woodcock Scolopax rusticola Distribution: The Eurasian Woodcock has an extensive Palaearctic distribution. It breeds from the Azores and Ireland to the pacific coast of Russia. Birds winter in Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, India and Southeast Asia to Japan. In Europe breeding occurs from Fennoscandia and Russia to the Mediterranean basin and the Canary Islands. Movements: Breeding populations in western maritime countries are sedentary, whilst those elsewhere are migratory. Scandinavian populations move southwest to winter mainly in Britain and France. Finnish birds move mainly south and winter mostly in Italy and the Balkans. Autumn movements start after the onset of frosts. Birds from the large Russian population are recorded wintering across most of West and Central Europe. The majority of birds are in their winter quarters by November but further (sometimes large scale) movements may occur in response to cold weather. Return migration starts in February in the Mediterranean region and the first half of March elsewhere. Population size and trends: The Woodcock is a difficult bird to count accurately. The European breeding population is estimated at 1,800,000 – 6,600,000 pairs of which 1,200,000 - 5,000,000 breeds in Russia (BirdLife Int. 2004A). The EU 27 population is estimated at 460,000 - 1,500,000 pairs (BirdLife Int. 2004A, 2004B). During 1990-2000 trends were stable across most of its European range, but declining in its Russian stronghold resulting in an overall moderate decline in Europe (>10%) (BirdLife Int. 2004A). Biological and behavioural aspects: Breeding: clutch size is usually 4 eggs (2-5); incubation 21-24 days; fledging period 15-20 days but sometimes able to get off ground at 10 days; independence: 5-6 weeks after hatching; brood: normally one brood.
    [Show full text]
  • Etc 2015 Award Winners
    10. ETC ® Oulu / Finland, May 11 – 17, 2015 Winners List (all awards and special awards): Novice Division (Best of Division Places): 1. Sandie Miransky (Denmark), Category NB, Rook ( Corvus frugilegus ) 2. Marko Väkiparta (Finland), Category NG, White-tailed Deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ) 3. Marko Väkiparta (Finland), Category NM, Lynx ( Lynx lynx ) Professional Division (Best of Category Places): (there must be at least 90 out of 100 points achieved, so it can happen that in some categories not all or even no places were given out) Category PB2 „Medium Birds“ 1. Roland Csernák (Hungary), Eurasian Woodcock ( Scolopax rusticola ) 2. Narvydas Stankevicius (Lithuania), Mandarin Duck ( Aix galericulata ) Category PB4 „Bird Groups“ 1. Jaap van den Berg (Netherlands), 2 Garganeys ( Anas querquedula ) Category PM2 „Medium Mammals“ 1. Darius Dauksa (Lithuania), Crested Porcupine ( Histrix cristata ) Category PG1 „Small Game Heads“ 1. Jaakko Tauriainen (Finland), Red Fox ( Vulpes vulpes ) Category PG3 „Large Game Heads“ 1. Kestutis Bybartas (Lithuania), Moose ( Alces alces ) 2. Ivan Prokaza (Latvia), Wild Boar ( Sus scrofa ) Category PRA1 „Reptiles/Amphibians“ 1. Tom Hoogesteger (Finland), Massasauga Rattlesnake (Sistrurus catenatus ) Masters Division (Best of Europe Titles): (there must be at least 90 out of 100 points achieved, so it can happen that in some categories not all or even no titles were given out) Birds „Best of Europe” Jürgen Fiebig (Germany), MB4 Helmeted Curassow (Pauxi pauxi ) „Second of Europe“ Robert Stein (Germany), MB3 Southern Cassowary ( Casuarius casuarius ) „Third of Europe“ Zsombor Pünkösti (Hungary), MB1 Blue-winged Siva (Siva cyanouroptera ) Mammals „Best of Europe” Kestutis Bybartas (Lithuania), MM4 Siberian Roe Deer (Capreolus pygargus ) Reconstructions/Scientific Models „Best of Europe“ Bo Wessman (Sweden), Zander (Sander lucioperca ) Collective Artists Division: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Species Table and Recommended Band Sizes the Table on the Left Is from the USGS Bird Banding Laboratory
    Species Table and Recommended Band Sizes The table on the left is from the USGS Bird Banding Laboratory. If there is more than one size listed then the first one is the preferred recommended size. The table on the right may be used to find the National Band & Tag Company butt-end band style that matches the federal band size you are looking for. This Size Chart should be used as a guide only! We cannot be responsible for incorrect sizes being ordered based on this chart. Please measure your bird’s leg for accurate sizing, if you are unsure we will gladly send samples. Common Federal Federal NB&T Inside Inside Name Band Size Size Size Dia. (IN) Dia. (MM) Abert's Towhee 1A, 2, 1D 0A None .078 1.98 Acadian Flycatcher 0A, 0 0 None .083 2.11 Acorn Woodpecker 2, 3 1 1242-3 .094 2.39 Adelaide's Warbler 0A, 0 1B None .109 2.77 Adelie Penguin 9 1P None .112 2.84 African Collared-Dove 3A 1A 1242-4 .125 3.17 African Penguin 9 1D None .138 3.50 African Silverbill 0, 1C, 1 2 1242-5 .156 3.96 Akekee 1B, 1C, 1 3 1242-6 .188 4.78 Akepa 0 3B None .203 5.16 Akiapolaau 1A 3A 1242-7 .219 5.56 Akikiki 0, 1C, 1 4 1242-8 .250 6.35 Akohekohe 1A 4S 1242-8 .250 6.35 Alaska Marbled Murrelet 3B, 3 4A None .281 7.14 Alder Flycatcher 0, 0A 4AS None .281 7.14 Aleutian Canada Goose 7B 5 1242-10 .313 7.95 Aleutian Tern 2, 1A, 1D 5A None .344 8.73 Allen's Hummingbird X 6 1242-12 .375 9.53 Altamira Oriole 3 7A 1242-14 .438 11.13 American Avocet 4, 4A 7AS 1242-14 .438 11.13 American Bittern M: 7A F: 6 7 1242-16 .500 12.70 American Black Duck 7A 7B None .531 13.49 American
    [Show full text]
  • Survey of Wintering Eurasian Woodcock in Western Europe
    Survey of Wintering Eurasian Woodcock in Western Europe DAVID GONÇALVES,1 CIBIO-InBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, Universidade do Porto, Campus Agrário de Vairão, 4485-661 Vairão, Portugal and Departamento de Biologia, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade do Porto, R. Campo Alegre s/n, 4169-007 Porto, Portugal TIAGO M. RODRIGUES, Departamento de Biologia, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade do Porto, R . Campo Alegre s/n, 4169-007 Porto, Portugal and Direção Regional dos Recursos Florestais, Rua do Contador, 23, 9500-050 Ponta Delgada, Portugal PAOLO PENNACCHINI, Féderation des Associations Nationales des Bécassiers du Palearctique Occidental (FANBPO), Via Fausto Vagnetti 12, 52031 Anghiari, Italy JEAN-PIERRE LEPETIT, Club National des Bécassiers (CNB), 3 , Allée des chénes, 87220 Feytiat, France LARRY TAAFFE, The National Woodcock Association of Ireland (NWAOI), Effoldstown House, Lusk, Co. Dublin, Ireland MARCO TUTI, Beccacciai d’Italia (BDI), C lemente Rebora 14 - 73100 Lecce, Italy BRUNO MEUNIER, Club National des Bécassiers (CNB), 105, Rue Louis Pergaud, Villeneuve, 16430 Champniers, France JEAN-PIERRE CAMPANA,2 Club National des Bécassiers (CNB), 8 , Impasse des Bois, La Granje À Robin, 17770 Aumagne, France GIANLUIGI GREGORI, Club della Beccaccia (CDB), L oc. Morani di sotto, 22 – 61040 Mercatello sul Metauro (PU), Italy ALBERTO PELLEGRINI, Club della Beccaccia (CDB), L oc. Morani di sotto, 22 – 61040 Mercatello sul Metauro (PU), Italy GIUSEPPE RAHO, Beccacciai d’Italia (BDI), Clemente Rebora 14 - 73100 Lecce, Italy PAUL DUCHEIN, Association Suisse des Bécassiers (ASB), P lanafaye 118, CH - 1752 Villars sur Glâne, Switzerland COLIN TROTMAN, Welsh Woodcock Club (WWC), Department of Adult Continuing Education (DACE), K eir Hardie Building, Swansea University, Singleton Park, Swansea, SA2 8PP, Wales, UK MIGUEL MINONDO, Club de Cazadores de Becada (CCB), A venida Schulz 8, 4°Dcha.
    [Show full text]
  • Influence of Weather on the Eurasian Woodcock's Breeding Display
    Influence of Weather on the Eurasian Woodcock’s Breeding Display CHRISTOPHER J. HEWARD,1 Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust, Burgate Manor, Fordingbridge, SP6 1EF. UK ANDREW LOWE, Birklands Ringing Group, 159 Sherwood Street, Market Warsop, Mansfield, NG20 0JX. UK GREG J. CONWAY, British Trust for Ornithology, The Nunnery, Thetford, Norfolk, IP24 2PU. UK ANDREW N. HOODLESS, Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust, Burgate Manor, Fordingbridge, SP6 1EF. UK ABSTRACT: Counts of displaying male Eurasian woodcock (Scolopax rusticola) form the basis for breeding Eurasian woodcock surveys in many regions across Europe and provide the only practical method of assessing the species’ abun- dance. This paper investigates the effect that weather may have on the results of these surveys, principally considering its influence upon Eurasian woodcock display behavior and detectability by surveyors. We assessed data from an annual Eurasian woodcock survey conducted in the Britain during 2004–2015 and correlated them with a number of weather vari- ables. This is supplemented by tracking data gathered from 19 male Eurasian woodcock to assess how weather might affect each individual’s decision to display. We found that counts of roding Eurasian woodcock were positively related to the amount of rainfall in the 2 weeks preceding the survey and negatively related to wind speed on the evenings that surveys were conducted. The likelihood that tagged male Eurasian woodcock displayed decreased in relation to wind speed and increased in relation to minimum air temperature. To guarantee that counts of displaying males provide a representative measure of abundance, we recommend that surveys consist of at ≥3 visits to each site within each year, that visits are spread as widely as possible across the peak displaying season, and that analyses are based on maximal counts rather than means to reduce the effects of surveys conducted in sub-optimal weather conditions.
    [Show full text]