Contagious Ecthyma Dermatitis as a Portal of Entry for Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae in Muskoxen (Ovibos moschatus) of the Canadian Arctic

2022 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Matilde Tomaselli ◽  
Bjørnar Ytrehus ◽  
Tanja Opriessnig ◽  
Pádraig Duignan ◽  
Chimoné Dalton ◽  
...  
2016 ◽  
Vol 52 (3) ◽  
pp. 719-724 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matilde Tomaselli ◽  
Chimoné Dalton ◽  
Pádraig J. Duignan ◽  
Susan Kutz ◽  
Frank van der Meer ◽  
...  

1985 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 120-126
Author(s):  
S. D. Mathiesen ◽  
T. Jørgensen ◽  
T. Traavik ◽  
A. S. Blix

2008 ◽  
Vol 127 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 10-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Turid Vikøren ◽  
Atle Lillehaug ◽  
Johan Åkerstedt ◽  
Tord Bretten ◽  
Magne Haugum ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 57 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jamie L. Rothenburger ◽  
Juliette Di Francesco ◽  
Lisa-Marie Leclerc ◽  
Frank van der Meer ◽  
Matilde Tomaselli ◽  
...  

Rangifer ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 23 (5) ◽  
pp. 213 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank L. Miller ◽  
Anne Gunn

The Peary caribou (Rangifer tarandus pearyi) was recognized as 'Threatened' by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada in 1979 and 'Endangered' in 1991. It is the only member of the deer family (Cervidae) found on the Queen Elizabeth Islands (QEI) of the Canadian High Arctic. The Peary caribou is a significant part of the region's biodiversity and a socially important and economically valuable part of Arctic Canada's natural heritage. Recent microsatellite DNA findings indicate that Peary caribou on the QEI are distinct from caribou on the other Arctic Islands beyond the QEI, including Banks Island. This fact must be kept in mind if any translocation of caribou to the QEI is proposed. The subspecies is too gross a level at which to recognize the considerable diversity that exists between Peary caribou on the QEI and divergent caribou on other Canadian Arctic Islands. The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada should take this considerable diversity among these caribou at below the subspecies classification to mind when assigning conservation divisions (units) to caribou on the Canadian Arctic Islands. In summer 1961, the first and only nearly range-wide aerial survey of Peary caribou yielded a population estimate on the QEI of 25 845, including about 20% calves. There was a strong preference for range on the western QEI (WEQI), where 94% (24 363) of the estimated caribou occurred on only 24% (ca. 97 000 km2) of the collective island-landmass. By summer 1973, the overall number of Peary caribou on the QEI had decreased markedly and was estimated at about 7000 animals. The following winter and spring (1973-74), the Peary caribou population declined 49% on the WQEI. The estimated number dropping to <3000, with no calves seen by us in summer 1974. Based on estimates from several aerial surveys conducted on the WQEI from 1985 to 1987, the number of Peary caribou on the QEI as a whole was judged to be 3300-3600 or only about 13-14% of the 1961 estimate. After a partial recovery in the late 1980s and early 1990s, Peary caribou on the WQEI declined drastically between 1994 and 1997 and were estimated at an all-time known low of about 1100 animals by summer 1997. The number of Peary caribou on the QEI in summer 1997 was likely no more than 2000-2400 or only 8-9% of the 1961 estimate. The four known major die-offs of Peary caribou on the WQEI between 1973 and 1997 occurred during winter and spring periods (1 Sep-21 Jun) with significantly greater (P<0.005) total snowfall, when compared to the long-term mean obtained from 55 caribou-years (1 Jul-30 Jun), 1947/48-2001/02, of weather records from Resolute Airport on Cornwallis Island. Of ecological significance is that the die-offs occurred when the caribou were at low mean overall densities and involved similar high annual rates of loss among muskoxen (Ovibos moschatus). All of the available evidence indicates that Peary caribou (and muskoxen) on the QEI experienced die-offs from prolonged, under-nutrition (starvation) caused by relative unavailability of forage-the forage was there but it was inaccessible to the caribou due to snow and/or ice cover. We cannot control the severe weather that greatly restricts the forage supply but we should try to reduce the losses of Peary caribou from other sources-humans, predators and competitors.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (10) ◽  
pp. e0240760
Author(s):  
Fabien Mavrot ◽  
Karin Orsel ◽  
Wendy Hutchins ◽  
Layne G. Adams ◽  
Kimberlee Beckmen ◽  
...  

Polar Record ◽  
1974 ◽  
Vol 17 (106) ◽  
pp. 13-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul F. Wilkinson

If one is sufficiently bold or foolish to ask why the musk-ox Ovibos moschatus was domesticated, even a superficial review of the available evidence suggests that several answers may be given, depending upon the viewpoint from which the question is posed. I have argued elsewhere (Wilkinson, 1972a; 1973) that the domestication of the musk-ox was inevitable if the exploitation of musk-oxen was to continue in the present century. Because of certain biological and behavioural characteristics, musk-oxen can be exploited in only two ways without endangering their survival or exceeding their capacity to regenerate their numbers: they may be hunted as what I have called a critical resource, by which I mean a resource that is not exploited regularly (including seasonally) or intensively, but without which human survival is difficult or impossible incertain areas and periods; alternatively, musk-oxen may be exploited on a sustained basis for a combination of meat, milk, robes, or qiviur through domestication. Archaeological and ethnographic evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that, as a general rule, musk-oxen were hunted as a critical resource before the arrival of Europeans in the Canadian Arctic.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. e0231724 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabien Mavrot ◽  
Karin Orsel ◽  
Wendy Hutchins ◽  
Layne G. Adams ◽  
Kimberlee Beckmen ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document