Tuesday, October 30, 2012

It’s a bird…it’s a plane…. Oh wait, it IS a bird…



How diminishing wetlands are harming migratory birds

Migratory birds face many obstacles in their daily lives. Habitat destruction, environmental toxins, and a rise in infectious disease are just a few of the difficulties they face. Protecting wetlands used as resting places, food, shelter and breeding grounds would greatly benefit migratory bird populations and help reduce the obstacles that stand in their way of survival.


What exactly are wetlands anyhow?
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service defines a wetland as land that transitions between aquatic and dry where the water table is near the surface of the land. Shallow water may cover all the land and supports aquatic plants, hydric soil is predominate and the land is covered seasonally by water (USDA, 2012).

Why are wetlands in trouble?         
According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, approximately 58,500 acres of wetlands were lost each year in the United States between the years of 1986 and 1997 (EPA, 2012). Most wetland destruction was caused by human activity. Many wetlands were drained, dredged and made into canal systems to support agriculture. Logging and mining also played a role in wetland degradation. Declining water quality and loss of wetland habitat can be caused by several factors. Runoff from farms or golf courses coupled with air pollution, can add extra minerals and toxins into the already fragile ecosystem of a wetland, causing decreased water quality. 

Encroaching housing developments, expanded agriculture and the introduction of non-native species all contribute in part to the problems wetlands are facing throughout the United States. There are also increasing natural threats to wetland areas from hurricanes, rising sea levels and erosion. Fortunately, wetland protection measures have helped slow down the loss of wetlands. Strict governmental guidelines, public education and huge restoration projects continue to protect remaining wetland areas in the United States (EPA, 2012).

Migratory Birds and their relationship to wetlands.
One third of all bird species in North America utilize wetlands for food, shelter breeding and social interaction. (Kroodsma, 1979). There are 836 species of birds protected in the United States under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. One quarter of those are known to be declining in population (USFWS, 2002). Several factors affect the relationships of birds and wetlands. The quality and depth of the water in a wetland, varies food availability and shelter; as well as promotes changes in behavioral patterns of the migratory birds (USFWS, 2002).

The relationship between wetlands and migratory birds is mutual. Wetlands themselves are dependent on the birds for maintaining overall stable conditions. Wading birds play an important role in the ecological fitness of wetland ecosystems. They redistribute nutrients and affect the demographics of fish and invertebrate populations through predation (Frederick, et al., 2008, cited in Arrieta, 2012, p.1).

Difficulties migratory birds face from depleting wetlands.
One of the most detrimental consequences of wetland reduction to breeding migratory birds is population loss. Even though the birds will move to other habitats, the conditions may be less suitable and recruitment (birth) rates will start to decline, while mortality rates will rise. Over the years these populations will no longer be sustainable (Bressler & Paul, 2012).

Habitat loss forces larger numbers of migratory birds to inhabit smaller spaces. This adds considerable stress and forces competition for limited resources. Large numbers of birds promote valuable vegetation loss and diminish water quality. This leads to a higher risk of disease transmission among the birds, as well as interspecies transfer (Post, et. al, 1998). 

The emergence of infectious diseases is increasing. Wild birds are widely recognized as natural hosts (reservoirs) of several diseases, such as bird flu (Avian Influenza). Aquatic environments play a key role in the transmission of this disease through an indirect fecal-oral route (Zhang, et. al., 2011). Since these migratory birds travel long distances, they may possibly shed the virus along their flight routes. The virus can persist in the environment, posing the risk of exposure to other birds or animals using the same habitat (Zhang, et. al., 2011). 

With shrinking habitat, migratory birds have a greater chance of coming in contact with domestic farm raised poultry and livestock. The virus associated with Avian Influenza can be transferred through fecal and nasal discharge. Insects and rodents can also potentially carry the virus to domestic flocks. Avian influenza persists for long periods, leaving opportunity for a high risk of transmission of the virus (Jacob, et al., 2011). 

References:
Arrieta, Diane, 2012. Impact of humans on biodiversity. Class paper. University of Edinburgh. Unpublished.
Bressler, D.W. and Paul, M., Effects on Eutrophication on Wetland Ecosystems.TetraTech.com  Online. Available at : http://n-steps.tetratech-ffx.com/PDF&otherFiles/literature_review/Eutrophication%20effects%20on%20wetlands.pdf [Accessed on 26/09/2012].
CERP (Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Project), 20112. Online. Available at: http://www.evergladesplan.org/facts_info/faqs_cerp.aspx#1 [Accessed on 25/09/2012].
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), 2012. Wetlands. Online. Available at: http://water.epa.gov/type/wetlands/types_index.cfm [Accessed on 24/09/2012].
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), 2012. Wetlands, Status and Trends. Online. Available at:http://water.epa.gov/type/wetlands/vital_status.cfm
Jacob, J.P., Butcher, G.D., Mather, F.B, and R.D. Miles., 2011. Avian Influenza in Poultry. University of Florida. Online. Available at: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ps032 [Accessed on 27/09/2012].
Kroodsma, D. E., 1979, Habitat values for nongame wetland birds, in Greeson, P.E., Clark, J.R., and Clark, J.E. eds., 1979, Wetland functions and values--The state of our understanding: Minneapolis, Minn., American Water Resources Association, p. 320-34
USDA (United States Department of Agriculture), 2012. Hydric Soils – Introduction. Online. Available at: http://soils.usda.gov/use/hydric/intro.html [Accessed on 24/09/2012].
USGS (United States Geological Survey), 2012.  Wild Birds and Emerging Diseases: Avian Influenza Transmission Risk and Movements of Wild Birds from Kazakhstan. Online. Available at: http://www.werc.usgs.gov/Project.aspx?ProjectID=39
USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife), 2002. Migratory Bird Mortality Fact Sheet. Online. Available at:  http://www.fws.gov/birds/mortality-fact-sheet.pdf [Accessed on 28/09/2012].
Wetlands : Characteristics and Boundaries 1995, n.d.: National Academy Press, eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost, Available at:  http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=4766#toc  [Accessed 25/09/2012].
Zhang, Hongbo,  Xu, Bing, Chen, Quanjiao,  Chen,  Jianjun, Chen, Ze, 2011. Characterization of an H10N8 influenza virus. Virology Journal V.8:42. Online. Available at: http://www.virologyj.com/content/8/1/42 [Accessed on 27/09/2012].

Original version of this post was produced for a class at Edinburgh University and is property of the university and the author.

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

You dirty rat!



This week’s blog is a two-fer. [Two rat stories in one week!]  The first is about a bunch of drunken rats while the second is about rats as a good source of protein in developing countries. 

 Story one: on a bender
Scientists at Scripps Research Institute located on the campus of FAU in Jupiter, suggest that  “binge-drinking rodents suggests that knocking back a few drinks every few days may swiftly reduce one’s capacity to control alcohol intake”  (Scripps, 2012).

Drinking heavily intermittently, rather than drinking some regularly can make your brain transition from social drinking to binge drinking and greater alcohol dependence. Brain functions were altered in the binge drinkers. Working memory was altered.

To find out more details of the study you may read the Scripps blog post here or link to the full article here.

Story 2: Rats for dinner
In many tropical parts of the world, rodents are considered a normal food source. They provide a good source of protein and also contain essential amino acids necessary for healthy humans (Fieldler, 1990). Another common practice in developing nations is consuming bushmeat (wildlife either hunted or found carcasses). Both practices pose problems  for emerging infectious diseases. Consuming wildlife can transmit diseases such as ebloa, monkeypox, HIV, anthrax and salmonella (Wolf, et. al, 2005).

Rats have been a delicacy in rural areas of Vietnam (and other countries) for centuries.  In 1994, the avian flu outbreak saw a rise in rat consumption in Asia (Hookway, 2008). There are approximately 42 societies that consume rodents on a regular basis (Fleldler, 1990).

 Africa is experimenting with commercial breeding facilities for domesticating wild rats as a food source (Fleldler, 1990). With shrinking wildlife populations and rise in infectious diseases, maybe raising rats is a viable solution. Read more about both rat stories from the links below.

Students, can you find more recent articles on humans consuming rats? Check it out by suing Searchwise

References:
 
 



Wolfe, N. D. Wolfe, Daszak,P., Kilpatrick, A. and Burke, D.S., 2005. Bushmeat Hunting, Deforestation, and Prediction of Zoonotic Disease Emergence.  Emerging Infectious Diseases • www.cdc.gov/eid • Vol. 11, No. 12




Monday, October 15, 2012

The Devil Made me do it



 DFTD and the Tasmanian Devil

 Devil Facial Tumour Disease (DFTD) is an infectious cancer that has been on the rise and greatly effecting populations of the Tasmanian Devil (Sarcophilus Harrisii), only found on the island of Tasmania and is listed as an endangered species on the IUCN Red list.

This disease is moving at a very fast rate and is estimated that by 2012, all populations of Tasmanian devils will be infected and at risk. McCullum, et. al, (2007), estimate that without successful intervention, all wild Tasmanian Devil populations will be extinct in 25 years. It is also estimated that affected populations could die out as soon as 15 years. The wild devil populations have seen a 60% decline in population (Mcleod, 2012).

DFTD is a fatal condition for the Tasmanian Devil and is very unusual, as it spreads like an infectious disease between animals (Devils) through biting. The general fitness levels of the Devil are poor due to lack of genetic diversity (DPIW, 2012). Death occurs from starvation around 6 months after the condition develops. Currently there is no cure or successful treatment for the disease.

To learn more about this disease, here is a suggested reading list and web resources to get your started:: Students can find the articles in searchwise from the library home page or electronic journal list.

Reading list:
Rodrigo K. Hamede, Hamish McCallum, Menna Jones. Biting injuries and transmission of Tasmanian devil facial tumour disease. Journal of Animal Ecology, 2012

Deakin JE, Bender HS, Pearse A-M, Rens W, O'Brien PCM, et al. (2012) Genomic Restructuring in the Tasmanian Devil Facial Tumour: Chromosome Painting and Gene Mapping Provide Clues to Evolution of a Transmissible Tumour. PLoS Genet 8(2): e1002483. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1002483

Transmission dynamics of Tasmanian devil facial tumor disease may lead to disease-induced extinction http://www.sfu.ca/biology/courses/bisc407/presentations2011/apr7b.pdf
 
Cull cannot save the Tasmanian Devil. 


 












References:

Macleod, E., 2012. 
The main content and general idea for this post was taken from a class lecture in Wildlife and Animal Health at the University of Edinburgh. Unpublished. [Thanks Ewan for an awesome class].

 
McCallum H., Tompkins D. M., Jones M., Lachish S., Marvanek S., Lazenby B., Hocking G., Weirsma J., Hawkins C. (2007) Distributon and impacts of Tasmanian devil facialtumour disease, EcoHealth 4, 318-325.
 

Image 2 credit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tasmanian_Devil_Facial_Tumour_Disease.png

Thursday, October 11, 2012

In the Dog House:



 New cancer treatment for dogs

 A new study, reported in the American Journal of Veterinary Research, found that a pox virus (myxoma) can be successful in treating several types of canine cancer cells. The virus that is found in rabbits, but does not afflict any other vertebrates attacks cancer cells in dogs, while sparing healthy cells (SD,2012).

This study is important because it is promising for benign cancer treatments in humans. Dogs develop spontaneously occurring cancers just as humans do. They share our food and live in the same environments, so this is a big step in standard cancer treatments. 

Furthermore, “viral infection of the cancer cells appears to train the immune system to better recognize the cancer” (SD, 2012).   Reintroduction of cancer cells in those treated for cancer is not exhibiting signs of new tumors. 

Unlike chemotherapy that kills healthy cells; many cancers have anti-viral defenses which allow viruses to target tumors while sparing healthy cells. The introduction of certain Oncolytic virus kills cancerous cells without any inflammatory responses (Urbasic, et al, 2012).

You can read more about the study and further research at the links below.

References:
Ashlee S. Urbasic, Stacy Hynes, Amy Somrak, Stacey Contakos, Masmudur M. Rahman, Jia Liu, Amy L. MacNeill. Oncolysis of canine tumor cells by myxoma virus lacking the serp2 gene. American Journal of Veterinary Research, 2012; 73 (8): 1252 DOI: 10.2460/ajvr.73.8.1252