Foot Injuries in Michigan, USA, Gray Wolves (\u3ci\u3eCanis lupus\u3c/i\u3e), 1992–2014

The range of gray wolves (Canis lupus) in the contiguous US is expanding. Research and monitoring to support population recovery and management often involves capture via foothold traps. A population-level epidemiologic assessment of the effect of trap injuries on wolf survival remains needed to inform management. We describe the baseline rate, type, and severity of foot injuries of wolves born 1992–2013 in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, evaluate the reliability of field-scoring trap-related injuries, and the effect of injuries on wolf survival. We assessed foot injuries by physical and radiographic exam at postmortem and/or time of capture for 351 wolves using the International Organization for Standardization 10990-5 standard and the effects of injuries, sex, age, previous capture and body condition on survival using proportional hazards regression. We used ordinal regression to evaluate epidemiologic associations between sex, age, previous capture, body condition, cause of death and injury severity. Most wolves (53%) experienced no physically or radiographically discernable foot injuries over their lifetimes. Among those wolves that did experience injuries, 33% scored as mild. Foot injuries had little epidemiologically discernable effect on survival rates. Wolves with higher foot trauma scores did experience an increased risk of dying, but the magnitude of the increase was modest. Most limb injuries occurred below the carpus or tarsus, and scoring upper-limb injuries added little predictive information to population-level epidemiologic measures of survival and injury severity. There was little association between injury severity and cause of death. Based on necropsy exams, previous trap injuries likely contributed to death in only four wolves (1.1%). Our results suggest that injuries resulting from foothold traps are unlikely to be a limiting factor in recovery and ongoing survival of the Michigan gray wolf population

Identification of Pollutant Source for Super-Diffusion in Aquifers and Rivers with Bounded Domains

©2018. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved. Backward models for super-diffusion in infinite domains have been developed to identify pollutant sources, while backward models for non-Fickian diffusion in bounded domains remain unknown. To restrict possible source locations and improve the accuracy of backward probabilities, this technical note develops the backward model for super-diffusion governed by the fractional-divergence advection-dispersion equation (FD-ADE) in bounded domains. The resultant backward model is the fractional-flux advection-dispersion equation (FF-ADE) with modified boundary conditions. In particular, the Dirichlet boundary condition in the forward FD-ADE becomes a spatial-nonlocal sink term in the backward FF-ADE (to account for preferential flow), while the nonlocal, non-zero-value Neumann (or Robin) boundary condition in the forward FD-ADE switches to the zero-value Robin (or Neumann) boundary condition in the backward FF-ADE (to eliminate pollutant source outside the domain). Field applications show that the backward location probability density function can approximate the point source location in a natural river or fluvial aquifer. The impact of reflective/absorbing boundaries and the upstream boundary location on the backward probability density function is also discussed

Transmission of Brucellosis from Elk to Cattle and Bison, Greater Yellowstone Area, USA, 2002–2012

Bovine brucellosis has been nearly eliminated from livestock in the United States. Bison and elk in the Greater Yellowstone Area remain reservoirs for the disease. During 1990–2002, no known cases occurred in Greater Yellowstone Area livestock. Since then, 17 transmission events from wildlife to livestock have been investigated

Exploring cultural differences in wildlife value orientations using student samples in seven nations

AbstractUnderstanding differences in the way people think about wildlife across countries is important as many conservation challenges transcend jurisdictions. We explored differences in wildlife value orientations in seven countries: Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, Malaysia, the Netherlands and Serbia. Standard scales assessed domination (prioritizing human well-being) and mutualism (striving for egalitarian relationships with wildlife). We used student samples (total n = 2176) for cross-cultural comparisons. Reliabilities of the wildlife value orientations scales were adequate in all countries. Relationships between demographics and wildlife value orientations were different across countries. Men were generally more oriented towards domination and less towards mutualism than women, except in Serbia, where it was the other way around. Estimated at the level of the individual (using ANOVA), wildlife value orientations varied across countries, with nationality explaining a larger portion of the variation in mutualism (21%) than domination (6%). Estimated at the level of countries (using multilevel modelling), effect sizes were comparable. Thought about wildlife has previously only been examined within single countries. This paper makes a new contribution to the conservation literature suggesting that wildlife value orientations vary by country, and are associated with demographic factors. For conservation practices, understanding national differences in the way people think about wildlife is crucial to understanding sources of conflict among practitioners. Such knowledge is also important to gain public support for conservation.</jats:p

Exploring cultural differences in wildlife value orientations using student samples in seven nations

Understanding differences in the way people think about wildlife across countries is important as many conservation challenges transcend jurisdictions. We explored differences in wildlife value orientations in seven countries: Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, Malaysia, the Netherlands and Serbia. Standard scales assessed domination (prioritizing human well-being) and mutualism (striving for egalitarian relationships with wildlife). We used student samples (total n = 2176) for cross-cultural comparisons. Reliabilities of the wildlife value orientations scales were adequate in all countries. Relationships between demographics and wildlife value orientations were different across countries. Men were generally more oriented towards domination and less towards mutualism than women, except in Serbia, where it was the other way around. Estimated at the level of the individual (using ANOVA), wildlife value orientations varied across countries, with nationality explaining a larger portion of the variation in mutualism (21%) than domination (6%). Estimated at the level of countries (using multilevel modelling), effect sizes were comparable. Thought about wildlife has previously only been examined within single countries. This paper makes a new contribution to the conservation literature suggesting that wildlife value orientations vary by country, and are associated with demographic factors. For conservation practices, understanding national differences in the way people think about wildlife is crucial to understanding sources of conflict among practitioners. Such knowledge is also important to gain public support for conservation