Winter feeding of elk in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and its effects on disease dynamics.

Existing Reviews

Please note, new claims can take a short while to show up.

No claims yet.

Annotation Summary

Term Occurence Count Dictionary
brucellosis 30 infectiousdiseases

There are not enough annotations found in this document to create the proximity graph.

Review

Having read the paper, please pick a pair of statements from the paper to indicate that a drug and disease are related.

Select Drug Character Offset Drug Term Instance
Select Disease Character Offset Disease Term Instance
brucellosis 1028 canadensis). Here we review research across 23 winter feedgrounds where the most studied disease is brucellosis , caused by the bacterium Brucella abortus. Traditional veterinary practices (vaccination, test-and-slaughter)
brucellosis 1485 scavengers. Given the right tools, feedgrounds could provide opportunities for adaptive management of brucellosis through regular animal testing and population-level manipulations. Our analyses of several such manipulations
brucellosis 1764 partnership guided by hypothesis testing, despite the constraints of the sociopolitical environment. However, brucellosis is now spreading in unfed elk herds, while other diseases (e.g. chronic wasting disease) are of increasing
brucellosis 4995 disease. In this paper, we review the effects of winter feedgrounds on disease ecology with a focus on brucellosis in elk in western Wyoming. We also offer suggestions for future research and management.Brucellosis
brucellosis 5235 Ecosystem2.For the past 50 years, much of the controversy surrounding the feedgrounds has focused on brucellosis . In the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE), brucellosis is caused by the bacterium Brucella abortus
brucellosis 5292 surrounding the feedgrounds has focused on brucellosis. In the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE), brucellosis is caused by the bacterium Brucella abortus and affects cattle, elk and bison (Bison bison). Globally
brucellosis 5554 cases in the USA are generally occupation-related and rare [[8]]. The greatest burden now imposed by brucellosis in the USA is economic. Brucellosis causes abortions and sterility in cattle so state and federal livestock
brucellosis 6055 in the GYE since 1917 [[10]–[12]]. Although eradicated from cattle herds in the rest of the USA, brucellosis periodically spills back from elk to GYE cattle. Transmission occurs when susceptible animals have direct
brucellosis 6637 the same site within a limited time frame.The respective roles of elk and cattle as reservoirs for brucellosis have changed over time, whereas the role of bison appears to have remained constant (figure 2). Our
brucellosis 8542 consensus that free-ranging elk outside of the feedground complex were a non-maintenance population for brucellosis [[14]]. Although the spread of brucellosis in elk in most regions of the GYE traces back to the feedgrounds
brucellosis 8585 feedground complex were a non-maintenance population for brucellosis [[14]]. Although the spread of brucellosis in elk in most regions of the GYE traces back to the feedgrounds [[10]], more recently, it appears that
brucellosis 8718 regions of the GYE traces back to the feedgrounds [[10]], more recently, it appears that higher levels of brucellosis seroprevalence in unfed elk herds unassociated with feedgrounds are self-sustaining, and in recent years
brucellosis 8865 unassociated with feedgrounds are self-sustaining, and in recent years there have been more cases of brucellosis in cattle away from, rather than in close proximity to, feedgrounds [[6],[7],[16]]. Because brucellosis
brucellosis 8969 brucellosis in cattle away from, rather than in close proximity to, feedgrounds [[6],[7],[16]]. Because brucellosis prevalence is generally still higher among feedground than free-ranging elk, feedgrounds may reduce
brucellosis 10598 several hundred to several thousand [[28]]. These large groups probably play a disproportionate role in brucellosis maintenance and spread [[6],[18]]. As unfed elk herds in the GYE have grown, so too have regional density
brucellosis 10773 GYE have grown, so too have regional density and large winter aggregations associated with increasing brucellosis prevalence [[27],[29]]. These large, unfed groups occur most frequently on private land or public land
brucellosis 13854 conditions, scavenger species are not thought to be important vectors for the spread or maintenance of brucellosis [[45]–[48]], and have the potential to mitigate transmission [[18],[49]]. Coyotes (Canis latrans)
brucellosis 14141 than unfed locations [[5],[15],[24]]. This has important implications for increasing prevalence of brucellosis in large, unfed aggregations of elk, as coyotes can be hunted year-round in most of the western USA,
brucellosis 15434 feedgrounds or on private land where hunting is restricted, leading to dense aggregations with increased brucellosis transmission risk.The effect of wolves on winter aggregations of elk has yet to be fully explored. Wolf
brucellosis 15844 response to predators, or both. Finer spatial resolution is needed to assess the effect of wolves on brucellosis transmission in the context of winter feeding, because stagnant elk herds or elk returning to feedlines
brucellosis 20486 [[58],[59]]. Figure 4.Test-and-slaughter of seropositive female elk between 2006 and 2010 reduced seroprevalence for brucellosis at the Muddy Creek feedground from 37% to 5%. In comparison, Scab Creek and Fall Creek received 2 years
brucellosis 21182 by distributing feed over a larger area. The probability of a susceptible elk becoming infected with brucellosis is correlated with contact rate and duration of contact with infected-aborted fetuses, which both increase
brucellosis 22280 treatment effects.Shortened feeding season(d)In a comprehensive study, over 55% of the spatial variation in brucellosis seroprevalence among feedground elk was explained by the length and ending date of the supplemental
brucellosis 24172 most abortions are thought to occur in year 1. This is further complicated by imperfect detection of brucellosis and the potential for reductions in population growth (see [[58]] for an in-depth discussion in the
brucellosis 24992 which animals to target for vaccination is required.Conclusion and future directions4.Prevalence of brucellosis remains high in fed elk and has become self-sustaining in unfed herds too. Past control efforts at feedgrounds,
brucellosis 25386 manipulations, have yet to be thoroughly assessed but from current serology they seem unlikely to resolve brucellosis by themselves. Temporary sterilization is an option, but it remains unclear how this could or should
brucellosis 26975 units containing feedgrounds, although no cases have yet been reported in elk in those areas. Unlike brucellosis , CWD is fatal in cervids. It is transmitted both directly and indirectly [[66]], persists in the environment
brucellosis 27415 through those areas. CWD probably represents a much bigger threat to cervid populations in the GYE than brucellosis , but has not yet been shown to infect cattle [[73]] or humans [[74]], although the possibility cannot
brucellosis 28758 determine relative stress levels, pregnancy, bacterial killing ability, cytokine levels, genetics and brucellosis serostatus. Fine-resolution spatial data on wolf and elk movement could elucidate predator–host–disease
brucellosis 28933 movement could elucidate predator–host–disease interactions during winter that catalyse or antagonize brucellosis transmission. Together with the results of previous and ongoing telemetry studies, such information

You must be authorized to submit a review.