<%BANNER%>

Infectious Bursal Disease Virus in Wild Turkeys and Sandhill Cranes of Florida

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021384/00001

Material Information

Title: Infectious Bursal Disease Virus in Wild Turkeys and Sandhill Cranes of Florida
Physical Description: 1 online resource (66 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Candelora, Kristen L
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: americana, bursal, canadensis, crane, disease, florida, gallopavo, georgia, grus, infectious, meleagris, sandhill, turkey, virus, whooping, wild
Wildlife Ecology and Conservation -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Wildlife Ecology and Conservation thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Captive-reared whooping cranes (Grus americana) released into Florida for the resident reintroduction project experienced unusually high mortality and morbidity during the 1997/98 and 2001/02 release seasons. Infectious bursal disease virus (IBDV) serotype 2 is currently under investigation as the factor that precipitated the mortality events. A small percentage of whooping cranes have been exposed to IBDV in the captive setting. However, many more are being exposed post-release, and prevalence of exposure increases with age or length of time the birds are in the wild in Florida. No studies have been published on the prevalence of IBDV in wild birds of North America. The goal of this study is to provide baseline data that can be used to create effective protocols and take measures to ensure that this virus does not impact the recovery of the endangered whooping crane. To determine if wild exposure to IBDV serotype 2 is possible, captive sentinel chickens were monitored for exposure to the virus on whooping crane release sites in central Florida during the 2003/04 and 2004/05 release seasons. Wild exposure is possible as chickens on both sites became exposed to IBDV serotype 2. To examine the potential for exposure of whooping cranes from other wildlife reservoirs, blood samples were collected from wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) and sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis) in 21 counties throughout Florida and 2 counties in southern Georgia. There is potential for whooping cranes, both resident and migratory, to become exposed to this virus through contact with wild birds as wild turkeys and sandhill cranes in 8 counties in Florida and 1 county in southern Georgia have been exposed to the virus. In addition, there is a significant age effect on seroprevalence in sandhill cranes. These findings are consistent with chicks having a shorter exposure time and immature immune system. The presence of higher seroprevalence and higher titers in older birds suggests that there is constant re-exposure or that birds remain carriers of the virus. To investigate the original source and history of the virus in wild birds of Florida, archived serum samples collected from sandhill cranes were tested for antibodies to IBDV serotype 2. Although I was unable to demonstrate that sandhill cranes in Florida were exposed to IBDV prior to the introduction of captive-reared cranes, the high prevalence and wide distribution of the virus in both sandhill cranes and wild turkeys suggest that the virus has been in Florida for quite some time. Many of the sites where blood was collected from wild turkeys and sandhill cranes overlap with the current distribution of whooping cranes in Florida. The presence of this virus in wild birds in these areas is especially concerning for the resident flock of whooping cranes because they nest and raise their chicks in Florida. The effect of exposure on whooping crane chicks is unknown at this time. However, the impact to young chickens suggests that if whooping crane chicks hatched in the wild are exposed to the virus at an early age, chick survival could be greatly reduced. Conversely, the relatively high titers maintained by adults may be passed on to the chicks and protect them at this otherwise vulnerable period in their lives.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Kristen L Candelora.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Percival, Henry F.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021384:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021384/00001

Material Information

Title: Infectious Bursal Disease Virus in Wild Turkeys and Sandhill Cranes of Florida
Physical Description: 1 online resource (66 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Candelora, Kristen L
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: americana, bursal, canadensis, crane, disease, florida, gallopavo, georgia, grus, infectious, meleagris, sandhill, turkey, virus, whooping, wild
Wildlife Ecology and Conservation -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Wildlife Ecology and Conservation thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Captive-reared whooping cranes (Grus americana) released into Florida for the resident reintroduction project experienced unusually high mortality and morbidity during the 1997/98 and 2001/02 release seasons. Infectious bursal disease virus (IBDV) serotype 2 is currently under investigation as the factor that precipitated the mortality events. A small percentage of whooping cranes have been exposed to IBDV in the captive setting. However, many more are being exposed post-release, and prevalence of exposure increases with age or length of time the birds are in the wild in Florida. No studies have been published on the prevalence of IBDV in wild birds of North America. The goal of this study is to provide baseline data that can be used to create effective protocols and take measures to ensure that this virus does not impact the recovery of the endangered whooping crane. To determine if wild exposure to IBDV serotype 2 is possible, captive sentinel chickens were monitored for exposure to the virus on whooping crane release sites in central Florida during the 2003/04 and 2004/05 release seasons. Wild exposure is possible as chickens on both sites became exposed to IBDV serotype 2. To examine the potential for exposure of whooping cranes from other wildlife reservoirs, blood samples were collected from wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) and sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis) in 21 counties throughout Florida and 2 counties in southern Georgia. There is potential for whooping cranes, both resident and migratory, to become exposed to this virus through contact with wild birds as wild turkeys and sandhill cranes in 8 counties in Florida and 1 county in southern Georgia have been exposed to the virus. In addition, there is a significant age effect on seroprevalence in sandhill cranes. These findings are consistent with chicks having a shorter exposure time and immature immune system. The presence of higher seroprevalence and higher titers in older birds suggests that there is constant re-exposure or that birds remain carriers of the virus. To investigate the original source and history of the virus in wild birds of Florida, archived serum samples collected from sandhill cranes were tested for antibodies to IBDV serotype 2. Although I was unable to demonstrate that sandhill cranes in Florida were exposed to IBDV prior to the introduction of captive-reared cranes, the high prevalence and wide distribution of the virus in both sandhill cranes and wild turkeys suggest that the virus has been in Florida for quite some time. Many of the sites where blood was collected from wild turkeys and sandhill cranes overlap with the current distribution of whooping cranes in Florida. The presence of this virus in wild birds in these areas is especially concerning for the resident flock of whooping cranes because they nest and raise their chicks in Florida. The effect of exposure on whooping crane chicks is unknown at this time. However, the impact to young chickens suggests that if whooping crane chicks hatched in the wild are exposed to the virus at an early age, chick survival could be greatly reduced. Conversely, the relatively high titers maintained by adults may be passed on to the chicks and protect them at this otherwise vulnerable period in their lives.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Kristen L Candelora.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Percival, Henry F.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021384:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





INFECTIOUS BURSAL DISEASE VIRUS INT WILD TURKEYS AND SANDHILL CRANES
OF FLORIDA



















By

KRISTEN L. CANDELORA


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2007





































O 2007 Kristen L. Candelora



































To my parents, Richard and Betty Candelora; without their support, none of this would have
been possible.









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank Larry Perrin, Roger Shields, and Jeremy Olson for allowing me to participate in

the research proj ect investigating the use of camera traps as a potential method for wild turkey

population estimation. This collaboration not only contributed samples to the project, but also

resulted in alternate collection methods that ultimately were responsible for the maj ority of

samples collected. I also thank my committee members, Marilyn Spalding, Franklin Percival,

Bill Guiliano, and Steve Nesbitt for their guidance and patience. I am especially grateful to

Marilyn Spalding who spent countless hours guiding the direction of the proj ect and reviewing

my thesis, and contributed archived sandhill crane samples for analysis. My sincere thanks go to

the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) biologists who were integral in

acquiring data from wild turkey populations on Wildlife Management Areas in Florida (David

Blood, Pam Boody, Mike Brooks, Victor Chavez, Matthew Chopp, Jean-Marie Conners, Nancy

Dwyer, Tim Farley, Steve Glass, Lewis Gonzales, Linda King, Tom O'Neil, Jayde Roof,

Nicholas Snavely, Valerie Sparling, Rick Spratt, Grant Steelman, Justin Nolte, and Jason

Williams) and the check station operators working on those areas. I acknowledge the FWC

Whooping Crane Reintroduction Program biologists Jeannette Parker, Marty Folk, Steve Baynes,

and Kathy Chappell who went above and beyond the call of duty collecting data from wild

Florida sandhill cranes and sentinel chickens. I thank Holly Sellers for analyzing all samples

collected for this study, and Jamie Miller for her technical and administrative assistance. I thank

Charlie Luthin and the Natural Resources Foundation of Wisconsin for their generous support.

Most of all my tremendous gratitude goes to my parents, Richard and Betty Candelora, for

making my schooling a priority and for always giving me their constant support in every way.












TABLE OF CONTENTS


page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............. ...............4.....


LIST OF TABLES ........._..... ...............7..____ ......


LIST OF FIGURES .............. ...............8.....


AB S TRAC T ......_ ................. ............_........9


CHAPTER


1 INTRODUCTION ................. ...............11.......... ......


Mortality Events .............. ... ......... ............1
Epidemiology of Infectious Bursal Disease .............. .....................13
Impact of Disease on Population Recovery ....._ .....___ .........__ ...........1
Obj ectives ................. ...............17...___ ......

2 SENTIENEL CHICKENS ............. ...... .__ ...............18..


Introducti on ............. ...... ._ ...............18...
M materials and M ethods .............. ...............18....
Lake County Release Site............... ...............18..
Polk County Release Site .............. ...............20....
Blood Collection and Analysis............... ...............20
Bursal Fluid Aspiration .............. ...............21....
R e sults............... ... ....__ ....... ... .... .... ..............2
Lake County: December 2003 through April 2004 ......____ ........._ ...............22
Polk County: December 2004 through May 2005 ......____ ...... .. ............. ..22
Discussion ............. ...... ._ ...............23...


3 INFECTIOUS BURSAL DISEASE INT WILD BIRDS OF FLORIDA ................. ...............30


Introducti on ................. ...............30.................
Use of Poultry Farms ................... .. .. ........ .. ......... ............3
Human Activity and Disposal of Poultry Products ................. ................. ..........3 1
Contact with W ild Bird s ................. ...............3.. 3.............
Materials and Methods .............. ...............35....
Wild Turkey................. ...............35
Florida Bobwhite Quail .............. ...............37....
Florida Sandhill Crane............... ...............38.
Re sults ................ ...............39.................
Wild Turkey................. ...............39
Florida Bobwhite Quail .............. ...............41....
Florida Sandhill Crane............... ...............41.













Discussion ................. ...............41.................


4 ARCHIVED SAMPLES ................. ...............50........... ....


Introducti on ................. ...............50.................
Materials and Methods .............. ...............51....
Re sults ................ ...............53.................
Discussion ................. ...............54.................


5 SYNTHESIS AND SIGNIFICANCE .............. ...............59....


Implications for the Whooping Crane Reintroduction Proj ect ....._____ ....... ....__..........59
Age Effect on Seroprevalence .............. ...... ...............60
Variation in Exposure Prevalence among Sites ................. ...............60...............
Transmission Mechanisms............... ...............6


LIST OF REFERENCES ................. ...............62................


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .............. ...............66....










LIST OF TABLES


Table page

3-1 Number of blood samples collected from harvested wild turkeys during the 2004,
2005, and 2006 spring turkey seasons. ............. ...............43.....

3-2 Number of blood samples collected from wild turkeys using rocket nets from
December 2003 through January 2007. ............. ...............44.....

3-3 Statistical results for yearly exposure prevalence in wild turkeys .................. ...............46

3-4 P-values for difference in yearly exposure prevalence and average titer level in wild
turkeys. ................. ...............47._ _._......

4-1 Statistical results for exposure prevalence by age of archived sandhill crane samples
collected in Alachua and Osceola counties from May 1992 to March 1998. ................... .56

4-2 Statistical results for exposure prevalence by county of archived sandhill crane
samples collected in Alachua and Osceola counties from May 1992 to March 1998.......57










LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

2-1 Timeline for Lake County release site. .............. ...............26....

2-2 Chicken trap locations on Lake County release site. ............. ...............27.....

2-4 Collecting blood from a chicken via the medial metatarsal vein. .............. ................28

2-5 Aspirating bursal fluid from the bursa of fabricius. ....._.__._ .... ... .__. ................. .29

3-1 Blood collection sites for wild turkey samples collected from December 2003
through January 2007. ............ ...............43.....

3-2 Blood collection sites for Florida sandhill crane samples collected during 2004,
2005, and 2006............... ...............45..

3-3 Frequency of titer levels for all wild turkey samples collected from December 2003
through January 2007............... ...............46..

3-4 Wild turkey exposure prevalence (% birds with titer level >1:32) at five sample sites
where 10 or more samples were collected in multiple years. ............. .....................4

3-5 Frequency of titer levels for Florida sandhill cranes captured in 2004, 2005, and
2006............... ...............48..

3-6 Titer level results for serum/filter paper comparisons. ............. ...............49.....









Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science

INFECTIOUS BURSAL DISEASE VIRUS INT WILD TURKEYS AND SANDHILL CRANES
OF FLORIDA

By

Kristen L. Candelora

August 2007

Chair: H. Franklin Percival
Major: Wildlife Ecology and Conservation

Captive-reared whooping cranes (Grus amnericana) released into Florida for the resident

reintroduction project experienced unusually high mortality and morbidity during the 1997/98

and 2001/02 release seasons. Infectious bursal disease virus (IBDV) serotype 2 is currently

under investigation as the factor that precipitated the mortality events. A small percentage of

whooping cranes have been exposed to IBDV in the captive setting. However, many more are

being exposed post-release, and prevalence of exposure increases with age or length of time the

birds are in the wild in Florida. No studies have been published on the prevalence of IBDV in

wild birds of North America. The goal of this study is to provide baseline data that can be used

to create effective protocols and take measures to ensure that this virus does not impact the

recovery of the endangered whooping crane.

To determine if wild exposure to IBDV serotype 2 is possible, captive sentinel chickens

were monitored for exposure to the virus on whooping crane release sites in central Florida

during the 2003/04 and 2004/05 release seasons. Wild exposure is possible as chickens on both

sites became exposed to IBDV serotype 2. To examine the potential for exposure of whooping

cranes from other wildlife reservoirs, blood samples were collected from wild turkeys (M~eleagris

gallopavo) and sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis) in 21 counties throughout Florida and 2









counties in southern Georgia. There is potential for whooping cranes, both resident and

migratory, to become exposed to this virus through contact with wild birds as wild turkeys and

sandhill cranes in 8 counties in Florida and 1 county in southern Georgia have been exposed to

the virus. In addition, there is a significant age effect on seroprevalence in sandhill cranes.

These findings are consistent with chicks having a shorter exposure time and immature immune

system. The presence of higher seroprevalence and higher titers in older birds suggests that there

is constant re-exposure or that birds remain carriers of the virus.

To investigate the original source and history of the virus in wild birds of Florida, archived

serum samples collected from sandhill cranes were tested for antibodies to IBDV serotype 2.

Although I was unable to demonstrate that sandhill cranes in Florida were exposed to IBDV

prior to the introduction of captive-reared cranes, the high prevalence and wide distribution of

the virus in both sandhill cranes and wild turkeys suggest that the virus has been in Florida for

quite some time.

Many of the sites where blood was collected from wild turkeys and sandhill cranes overlap

with the current distribution of whooping cranes in Florida. The presence of this virus in wild

birds in these areas is especially concerning for the resident flock of whooping cranes because

they nest and raise their chicks in Florida. The effect of exposure on whooping crane chicks is

unknown at this time. However, the impact to young chickens suggests that if whooping crane

chicks hatched in the wild are exposed to the virus at an early age, chick survival could be

greatly reduced. Conversely, the relatively high titers maintained by adults may be passed on to

the chicks and protect them at this otherwise vulnerable period in their lives.









CHAPTER 1
INTTRODUCTION

The range of the whooping crane (Grus amnericana) once extended from central Canada

south to Mexico, and from Utah to the Atlantic coast. In 1865, the estimated population size was

700-1,400 birds (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994). Habitat loss, unregulated hunting, and

specimen collection had severe negative impacts, and by 1937 the population was reduced to a

single non-migratory flock in southwestern Louisiana and a single migratory flock that wintered

on the Gulf coast of Texas and nested in an unknown location (later discovered to be Wood

Buffalo National Park in Canada). By 1950, the non-migratory flock had been extirpated and

just 34 birds remained in the migratory flock (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994).

Congress passed the Endangered Species Preservation Act in 1966, and the whooping

crane was listed as threatened with extinction in 1967. In that same year the Canadian Wildlife

Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service began collecting eggs from birds in the Wood

Buffalo flock, to generate a captive breeding flock of whooping cranes. The goal was to

propagate whooping cranes, and reintroduce their offspring into the areas from which they were

extirpated. Reintroduction of captive-reared whooping cranes began in 1993 when the Florida

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, in cooperation with several government and private

agencies, released birds on the Kissimmee Prairie in central Florida with the goal of establishing

a resident, non-migratory flock (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994).

Captive-reared whooping cranes released into Florida for the resident reintroduction

proj ect experienced unusually high mortality and morbidity during the 1997/98 and 2001/02

release seasons. Exposure to infectious bursal disease virus (IBDV) was documented, and may

have been the precipitating factor for these mortality events (Spalding et al. 2006). The purpose

of this study is to provide baseline data on the potential for exposure of whooping cranes to









IBDV from other wildlife reservoirs, so that effective protocols can be created and measures

taken to ensure that this virus does not impact the recovery of the endangered whooping crane.

Mortality Events

In 1997/98, 14 of 22 captive-reared whooping cranes died within 6 months of their

release. Another mortality event occurred during the 2001/02 release season. Seventy percent of

birds released were affected. Of the 27 birds released 14 died, 5 others became sick and two of

these had to be taken into permanent captivity. Birds from 4 different captive-rearing facilities in

the United States and Canada were involved (Spalding et al 2006). A number of potential causes

were considered (food, water, environmental toxins, herbicides, West Nile virus, coccidiosis, St.

Louis and eastern equine encephalitis) and were ruled out (M. G. Spalding, University of Florida,

unpublished data). Finally, because there was evidence of immunosuppression and the pattern of

illness seemed to be restricted to young of the year, blood samples were tested for exposure to

IBDV.

The pattern of birds testing positive matched well with those that were sick or died,

suggesting that IBDV may have been the factor precipitating the mortality events (Spalding et al.

2006). As a result, an epidemiological study was initiated. This included testing archived blood

samples from whooping cranes for exposure to IBDV, the initiation of a monitoring program for

all captive-reared whooping cranes released into Florida and their offspring, and testing of

whooping cranes in the captive flock. Results showed that some birds had been exposed to

IBDV in the captive setting (Hartup and Sellers 2006). However, many more were exposed after

their release into Florida and prevalence of exposure increased with age or length of time a bird

was in the wild (Spalding et al. 2006).

Infectious bursal disease poses a significant threat to the successful recovery of the

endangered whooping crane, and captive-reared whooping cranes released in Florida are being










exposed to the virus post-release. Very little is known about the incidence of IBDV outside of

poultry operations, especially in North America. Therefore prevalence of the virus in wild birds,

the etiology of the virus, and its transmission mechanism are unknown. The goals of this study

are to investigate whether wild exposure is possible, how wild exposure may occur, and the

origin of the virus in wild birds of Florida.

Epidemiology of Infectious Bursal Disease

Infectious bursal disease is an acute, highly contagious, viral disease that is common on

poultry farms. The pathogenicity, resistance to disinfectants, and persistence in the environment

make it one of the most important viruses of domestic poultry throughout the world (Lukert and

Saif 2003). Infected chickens shed the virus in their feces, and can transmit the virus for at least

14 days (Ahad 2002). Water, feed, and droppings taken from infected pens in poultry houses

were found to be infectious for 52 days (Benton et al. 1967).

There are two forms of this disease, clinical and subclinical. For chickens, the period of

greatest susceptibility to clinical disease is between 3 and 6 weeks of age. The incubation period

is very short, and clinical signs are seen within 2-3 days of exposure. Symptoms such as loss of

appetite, dehydration, and diarrhea rapidly appear and the mortality rate can be as high as 30%

(Lukert and Saif 2003). In chickens infected before 3 weeks of age, a severe, prolonged

immunosuppression occurs (Lukert and Saif 2003). The suppression of their immune system is

similar to the effect of HIV on humans, leaving the birds vulnerable to a variety of ailments that

normally would not be life threatening (Allan et al. 1972). In this weakened state, the birds are

also more susceptible to predation.

There are two serotypes of IBDV. Type 1 occurs in all major poultry producing areas

worldwide, and can cause acute mortality/immunosuppression in chickens. Type 2 is widespread

in poultry flocks in the United States. It is found in both chickens and turkeys, but is non-









pathogenic to these species (Lukert and Saif 2003). It is Type 2 that appears to have been

involved in the whooping crane mortality event of 2001/02 (Spalding et al. 2006).

Anecdotal evidence suggests IBDV may be pathogenic to other avian species, but no

study has directly linked exposure to clinical illness in any species other than chickens.

Evidence of exposure to IBDV serotypee not identified) was found in Adelie penguin (Pgyoscelis

adeliae) chicks following a mortality event where an infectious agent was suspected to be the

cause. Clinical disease was not apparent at that time, but authors suggested that further

investigation was warranted (Gardner et al. 1997). Populations of common eider (Sontateria

nzollissinta) in the Baltic Sea have declined significantly in some areas and juvenile mortality

was reported to be the primary cause for this decline (Hollmen et al. 2000). Although authors

reported no evidence of illness, exposure to IBDV serotype I was confirmed and exposure

prevalence was highest for elders nesting in areas where duckling survival was low (Hollmen et

al. 2000). In addition, following a mortality event of African black-footed penguins (Spheniscus

dentersus) and macaroni penguins (Eudyptes chrysolophus) in a zoo in the United Kingdom,

Jackwood et al. (2005) were able to isolate IBDV serotype 2 from birds involved. The role of

this virus in the mortality event was unknown, and authors suggested that further study should be

conducted to determine pathogenicity of IBDV in these species.

Impact of Disease on Population Recovery

Interactions between disease and population density play an important role in regulating

animal populations, generally without threat of eliminating the population completely (Lafferty

and Gerber 2002). This is especially true for large populations that occupy large geographic

areas (Woodroffe 1999). As a population expands, animals are forced to live in closer proximity

to one another and share resources with an increasing number of conspecifics. In some situations

these circumstances lead to an increase in stress and a decrease in general condition, leaving









individuals more susceptible to disease while bringing them closer to animals from which they

may contract it (Smith 2001). A decline in population density is often the result. At lower

densities transmission of disease is usually reduced and diseases are spread more slowly, if at all

(Lafferty and Gerber 2002). The disease's role in population regulation then becomes negligible.

The impact of disease on small populations can be very different, posing a serious threat

to the persistence of such populations. If hosts are killed more quickly than they can breed,

population growth rates decline (Woodruff 1999). This perpetuates the small population's

vulnerability to extinction by stochastic events. One example comes from the long-term

monitoring of bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis). Berger (1990) found that small populations of

50 animals or less were more prone to extinction than populations numbering 100 animals or

more. This is a concern for the Florida resident population of whooping cranes which now

number approximately 60 individuals (Folk et al. 2006).

The threat of extinction caused by disease is also greater in small populations because

they are more likely to have experienced inbreeding, and limited genetic diversity can lead to a

decrease in disease resistance (Glenn et al. 1999). These populations could therefore experience

greater mortality than a genetically diverse population, and disease has proven to be an issue in

some species involved in reintroduction programs when there is a decline or reduction of genetic

diversity in captive-bred animals (Glenn et al. 1999). In 1982 and 1983, 18 cheetahs (Acinonyx

jubatus) in a captive breeding facility died from feline infectious peritonitis. It is unusual for this

disease to cause such high mortality. O'Brien et al. (1985) suggested that mortality was so

significant because the cheetahs lacked an effective immune response as a result of inbreeding.

This concern also applies to whooping cranes because the population experienced a severe

genetic bottleneck in the early 1940's when the migratory flock declined to just 15 or 16 birds










(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994). It is estimated that these remaining birds were highly

interrelated, having an effective population size of only 1.2 birds (Jones et al. 2002). Because

this was the founder population, all whooping cranes that exist today suffer reduced genetic

diversity (Glenn et al. 1999).

In the conservation of small, already compromised populations such as the whooping

crane, immunocompromising diseases such as IBDV could be especially problematic (Thorne

and Williams 1988, Lafferty and Gerber 2002). Once infected with such a disease, host

organisms become susceptible to secondary infection by common but normally benign disease

organisms (Hollmen et al. 2000).

The potential for transmission of IBDV between domestic poultry and wild birds is an

additional concern for the resident flock of whooping cranes in Florida as disease can be an issue

in the recovery of species when the potential for transmission between domestic animals and

endangered species exists. The African wild dog (Lycaon pictus) population has declined

considerably in recent decades, and in 2002 was estimated at less than 5,500 individuals.

Domestic canine diseases such as rabies and canine distemper, possibly transmitted by dogs from

local villages, were some of the suggested causes of this decline (van de Bildt et al. 2002).

According to Thorne and Williams (1988) canine distemper was also common in domestic dogs

in Wyoming. In 1985, a drastic decline was noted in the last known wild population of black-

footed ferrets (M~ustela nigripes). To investigate the cause of the decline, ferrets were captured

from widely separated locations. The fact that all died in captivity of canine distemper, indicated

that the disease was widespread. The 18 known survivors of the disease outbreak were captured

and placed in a captive breeding program. The free-ranging colony was essentially extirpated.









Obj ectives

I could find no published study confirming that wild birds in the United States have

become exposed to IBDV. However, results from the epidemiological study by Spalding et al.

(2006) indicated that some captive-reared whooping cranes had been exposed to IBDV following

their release into Florida. Therefore, the first obj ective was to test the hypothesis that wild

exposure to IBDV is possible without direct contact with potentially infected captive-reared

whooping cranes.

To investigate how wild exposure may occur I tested the hypothesis that contact with

wild birds is a potential exposure mechanism. For contact with wild birds to be a valid exposure

mechanism, wild birds that whooping cranes share habitat with post-release must be positive for

IBDV exposure. Therefore, the second objective was to determine if such species had been

exposed to the virus and to assess the prevalence of exposure among those species.

The original source of IBDV in wild bird of Florida is unknown. There are many

possibilities related to domestic poultry operations such as: transmission by people carrying the

virus on contaminated footwear, inappropriate disposal of poultry products, and use of poultry

litter as fertilizer in the agricultural industry. Another option is that captive-reared cranes were

exposed to the virus in captivity and they introduced the virus to wild birds of Florida post-

release. However, this possibility might be eliminated if it could be shown that wild birds in

Florida had been exposed to the virus prior to the release of captive-reared cranes. Therefore, the

third obj ective was to test the hypothesis that wild sandhill cranes (Grus Cana~densis) in Florida

were exposed to the virus prior to the release of captive-reared cranes, or in areas where contact

with captive-reared cranes was highly unlikely.









CHAPTER 2
SENTIENEL CHICKENS

Introduction

Infectious bursal disease virus (IBDV) is a common poultry virus. It is well documented

that birds in domestic operations are being exposed worldwide, and transmission mechanisms are

fairly well understood in this setting (Lukert and Saif 2003). Although there are no published

studies confirming that wild exposure to IBDV has occurred in North America, or demonstrating

that transmission mechanisms exist, Spalding et al. (2006) found that captive-reared whooping

cranes (Grus amnericana) had been exposed to IBDV following their release into Florida. To test

the hypothesis that wild exposure in Florida is possible without direct contact with potentially

infected whooping cranes, sentinel chickens confirmed to be free of disease were monitored for

exposure to IBDV.

Materials and Methods

Six-week-old specific pathogen free (SPF) leghorn chickens were purchased from

Charles River Laboratories, Inc. (251 Ballardvale Street Wilmington, MA 01887-1000). Blood

samples were collected upon arrival to confirm the sentinel chickens had not previously been

exposed to IBDV. Chickens were housed in 32x10xl2 Tomahawk Raccoon/Feral Cat Live

Traps (PO Box 323, Tomahawk, WI, 54487) and provided with fresh food and water daily.

Lake County Release Site

The first cohort of captive-reared whooping cranes for the 2003/04 release season arrived

at the release site on December 8, 2003. The birds were brailed and placed in a portable pre-

release pen. Brails were removed on December 21, 2003 and the birds were free to leave the pen

(Figure 2-1). Three of these birds were positive for exposure to IBDV serotype 2 upon arrival at

the release site. No birds seroconverted while in the pen. The second cohort arrived on









February 5, 2004 and brails were removed on February 18, 2004 (Figure 2-1). None of these

cranes were positive for exposure to IBDV serotype 2 upon arrival. One bird seroconverted

while in the pen (M. G. Spalding, University of Florida, unpublished data).

Eight SPF chickens were placed in cages when the first cohort arrived for release

(December 8, 2003) and remained on the site through April 2004 (Figure 2-1). To increase the

chance for viral exposure for another investigation, the chickens were separated into two groups

of four and placed 1.07 km apart. One group of chickens was placed 1.47 km from the release

site, along the edge of a small pine forest (Figure 2-2). This group of chickens was exposed to

crane feces collected from the vicinity of the release pen. The second group of chickens was

placed 0.51 km from the release site, along the edge of an oak hammock (Figure 2-2). This

group was not exposed to crane feces. To minimize cross contamination when checking the

sentinel chickens the protocol was to always visit the non-exposure group first.

Feces were collected from areas surrounding the feeders used by cranes after leaving the

release pen. All were used by the current year' s release birds, past years release birds, and a few

wild sandhill cranes. For each collection attempt, I monitored the feeder being used by the most

current year' s captive-reared whooping cranes. I watched the birds, noting when and where one

defecated. Feces were collected when cranes left the feeder area. When there were multiple

feces in the vicinity, all were collected in an attempt to ensure collection of the target feces.

Feces were placed in the cages of the exposure group when the chickens had been on the site for

43 days, 50 days, and 56 days (Figure 2-1). No feces were collected after the arrival of the

second cohort of captive-reared whooping cranes.

To determine whether the likelihood of becoming exposed to IBDV was independent of

exposure to crane feces, a likelihood ratio (G) test for independence was employed using the









statistical software JMP 7 (SAS Institute 2007). The test was 2-tailed and considered significant

at P <0.05.

Polk County Release Site

Five captive-reared whooping cranes arrived for release on December 8, 2004 and were

debrailed on December 22, 2004 (Figure 2-3). None of the captive-reared cranes were positive

for IBDV exposure upon arrival. One bird seroconverted while in the pen (M. G. Spalding,

University of Florida, unpublished data).


Eight SPF chickens were placed in cages on December 11, 2004 and remained on the

release site through May 2005 (Figure 2-3). All 8 chickens were placed in the same area and

none were exposed to crane feces. The cages were placed in a small oak hammock surrounded

by improved pasture.

Blood Collection and Analysis

Blood collection and analysis methods were the same for SPF chickens on both release

sites. A blood sample was collected from each chicken approximately every 2 weeks. One to 2

mL of blood was collected from the medial metatarsal vein (Figure 2-4). A 27-gauge needle was

used on young chickens, and a 25-gauge needle was used when they were full grown. After

collection, blood was transferred into a lithium heparinized vacutainer. All samples were kept

cold until they were spun down and the serum collected. The serum was frozen until it was sent

to the Poultry Diagnostic & Research Center (College of Veterinary Medicine, University of

Georgia, 953 College Station Road, Athens, GA 30602) for evaluation.

All serum samples were tested for IBDV serotype 2 antibodies. Infectious bursal disease

serotype 2 virus neutralizations, using the beta procedure (constant virus/diluted serum), were

performed in primary chicken embryo fibroblast (CEF) cultures prepared from 9-11 day old SPF









chicken embryos. Sera were heat inactivated at 56oC for 45 minutes, followed by centrifugation

at 1200 x g for 10 minutes. Fifty microliters of serum was added to the first well of each row

(rows A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H) in a tissue culture-treated 96 well plate. Serotype 2 IBDV

antigen was diluted to contain 100-500 Tissue Culture Infectious Doseso/50pl~.

Subsequently, 50 CLL of diluted antigen was added to all wells (columns 1-1 1), except

wells in column 12 (this served as a cell control). Serial dilutions were prepared by mixing the

serum and antigen in column 1 and transferring 50 CLL to column 2. Pipette tips were changed

and contents in column 2 were mixed and 50 CLL was transferred to column 3. This was repeated

through column 10 where contents were mixed and 50 CLL were discarded. Column 11 contained

antigen only and was the virus control. Positive serotype 2 IBDV sera and negative sera were

included in assay as controls. One hundred and ninety CLL of CEFs were added to all wells.

Cells were incubated at 37oC for 5 days, cell culture media decanted, cells fixed with methanol

for 1 minute and stained with crystal violet for 1 minute. Virus neutralizing titer was recorded as

the reciprocal dilution of the last well exhibiting no cytopathic effect.

It is unknown what titer level indicates true exposure to IBDV. Previous studies of wild

birds have considered titer levels ranging from 1:16 to 1:80 as evidence of exposure (Wilcox et

al. 1983, Gardner et al. 1997, Ogawa et al. 1998, Hollmen et al. 2000). For the purposes of this

study I assumed a titer level of 1:8 or less indicated no exposure to the virus. Birds with a titer

level of 1:16 were considered possibly exposed. A titer level of 1:32 or greater was assumed to

be indicative of exposure.

Bursal Fluid Aspiration

Seventeen bursal fluid samples were collected from SPF chickens on the Polk County

release site in an attempt to isolate the IBDV serotype 2. The bursa of fabricius is a sac-like

extension of the hindgut, located on the dorsal side of the cloaca. The chicken was placed on its










back, and a Kendall Monoj ect 16G x 1-1/2 aluminum hub blunt needle (tyco/Healthcare, Two

Ludlow Park Dr., Chicopee, MA, 01022) was inserted into the vaginal opening of the vent, at a

slightly downward angle. The needle was inserted until it dropped down into the bursa of

fabricius (Figure 2-5). Fluid was aspirated and then inj ected into a sterile solution of phosphate

buffer saline. The solution was frozen and sent to the lab for evaluation.


Results

Lake County: December 2003 through April 2004

Seroprevalence did not differ significantly between groups exposed and not exposed to

crane feces (P = 0.148). Of the 4 chickens in the non-exposure group, three seroconverted and

one was possibly exposed. Of the three chickens with titer levels high enough to indicate

exposure, two had a titer level of 1:64 and one had a titer level of 1:256 indicating recent

exposure. Two of these chickens seroconverted after being on the release site for 101 days. One

chicken seroconverted after being on the release site for 133 days (Figure2-1).

Of the four chickens in the fecal exposure group, one became exposed to IBDV serotype

2, two were possibly exposed, and one was not exposed. The chicken with a titer level high

enough to indicate viral exposure seroconverted after being on the release site for 101 days

(Figure 2-1). The chicken that did not seroconvert is the bird that spent the least amount of time

on the release site. It was found dead in its cage after having been on the release site for 79 days

(Figure 2-1). Necropsy did not reveal cause of death, and no virus was isolated from its tissues.

Polk County: December 2004 through May 2005

Eight sentinel chickens were placed on the release site, but a raccoon killed one within

the first 2 weeks. Data were analyzed on the 7 remaining chickens. Two chickens became

exposed to the virus, one was possibly exposed, and four were not exposed. Of the two chickens










that became exposed, one seroconverted after being on the release site for 29 days, the other

seroconverted after 66 days (Figure 2-1). One had a titer level of 1:256, indicating recent

exposure.

The IBDV serotype 2 was not isolated from any bursal fluid samples. Comparison of

titer level from blood collected on the same day as bursal fluid revealed that only one of the

seventeen samples was collected from a bird having a titer level high enough to indicate

exposure.

Discussion

Some sentinel chickens on both release sites seroconverted to IBDV serotype 2,

supporting the hypothesis that wild transmission of IBDV in Florida is possible. The hypothesis

is strengthened by the failure of exposure to potentially infected feces from whooping cranes to

increase the seroconversion rate of the chickens. It is possible, but unlikely, that the chickens

became infected directly from the captive-reared whooping cranes. Cranes may have visited the

chicken cages, although this was never observed. The virus may have been carried by people

when feeding or handling the chickens, although protocol dictated that chickens were visited

before entering the release area to minimize this possibility.

The hypothesis is further supported by the fact that chickens on the Polk County release

site became exposed to IBDV, yet none of the captive-reared whooping cranes released were

positive for IBDV serotype 2 antibodies upon arrival at the release site. However, one of the

captive-reared whooping cranes seroconverted while in the pen. Seroconversion could be the

result of wild exposure or it is possible that the crane was exposed in captivity, but did not

seroconvert until after it was put in the pen.

The finding that likelihood of exposure was not significantly affected by contact with

potentially infected feces must be interpreted with caution for 2 reasons. First, the sample size









was small (n = 8). Second, it is possible that I did not collect any infected feces. Previous

research indicates that chickens shed the virus in feces for 14 days (Ahad 2002). It is unknown if

or how long whooping cranes may shed the virus in feces, but it is possible that exposed cranes

were not shedding the virus at time of collection.

Regardless of whether or not chickens in the fecal exposure group were exposed to

infected crane feces, some chickens in the non-exposure group did seroconvert. This suggests

that the virus is present in the environment and available to infect susceptible hosts. Therefore,

further research into wild exposure mechanisms with insects acting as the vector is warranted. A

strain of IBDV serotypee not identified) was isolated from mosquitoes (Aedes vexans) trapped in

southwestern Ontario in 1976 (Howie and Thorsen 1981). This species is found throughout the

United States and utilizes a wide range of habitat types (O'Malley 1990). Whooping cranes are

known to have contracted other mosquito born viruses such as Eastern Equine Encephalitis and

West Nile virus (M. G. Spalding, University of Florida, unpublished data). Dung beetles may be

another insect of interest as whooping cranes in Florida have become infected with a nematode

that utilizes dung beetles as an intermediate host (Varela et al. 2001).

Another potential exposure mechanism is the use of poultry litter containing feces as

fertilizer, a practice used regularly on the property adj oining the Lake County release site.

Although the virus can be transmitted in chickens through contact with infected feces, research

indicates that IBDV does not survive the Maryland Method of dead bird composting, otherwise

known as two stage composting (Murphy 1990). Therefore the material itself if properly

composted is probably not the source of infection. But the virus has been isolated from adult

lesser mealworms (Alphitobius diaperinus Panzer) which commonly inhabit poultry houses,

living in poultry droppings and litter (McAllister et al. 1995, Dunford and Kaufman 2006).









Mealworms could be transferred from the poultry house to the wild if litter infested with

mealworms is spread on the fields, and presence of the lesser mealworm has been confirmed in

numerous counties throughout Florida (Dunford and Kaufman 2006).












Dec 8, 2003: Whooping Crane Cohort
1 placed in pen on the release site. Dec 8, 2003: Sentinel chickens placed
Three cranes were positive for IBDV in cages on the release site
exposure upon arrival.

Dec 21, 2003: Whooping Crane
Cohort 1 released from pen. No cranes
became exposed to IBDV while in the
pen.
Jan 20, 2004: Sentinel chickens in
Exposure Group exposed to crane feces

Jan 27, 2004: Sentinel chickens in
Exposure Group exposed to crane feces

Feb 2, 2004: Sentinel chickens in
Exposure Group exposed to crane feces

Feb 5, 2004: Whooping Crane Cohort
2 placed in pen on the release site.
None of these cranes were positive for
IBDV exposure upon arrival.

Feb 18, 2004: Whooping Crane
Cohort 2 released from pen. One crane-
seroconverted while in the pen.

Feb 27, 2004: Mortality of sentinel
chicken in Fecal Exposure Group

March 19, 2004: Seroconversion of 1
sentinel chicken in Fecal Exposure
Group and 2 chickens in Non-exposure
Group
April 20, 2004: Seroconversion of 1
-sentinel chicken in Non-exposure
Group
April 23, 2004: Sentinel chickens
removed from release site

Figure 2-1. Timeline for Lake County release site.


































Figure 2-2. Chicken trap locations on Lake County release site.


Dec 8, 2004: Whooping cranes
placed in pen on release site. No
cranes were positive for IBDV
exposure upon arrival.

Dec 11, 2004: Sentinel chickens
placed in cages on the release site

Dec 22, 2004: Whooping cranes
released from pen. One crane-
seroconverted while in the pen.

Jan 19. 2005 Ser.coni\ version of 1
sentinel c~hick~en

Feb 15. 200(5 Ser~oconi version of 1
sentinel c~hick~en


May 3 2005: Sentinel chickens
removed from release site

Figure 2-3. Timeline for Polk County release site.





































Figure 2-4. Collecting blood from a chicken via the medial metatarsal vein.



































Figure 2-5. Aspirating bursal fluid from the bursa of fabricius.









CHAPTER 3
INFECTIOUS BURSAL DISEASE IN WILD BIRDS OF FLORIDA

Introduction

Infectious bursal disease virus has been well studied in commercial poultry operations,

but very little is known about the prevalence or exposure mechanisms in wild birds (Lukert and

Saif 2003). Although I could find no published literature on the incidence of IBDV in wild birds

of North America, studies done in Antarctica, Australia, Crozet Archipelago in the Indian Ocean,

Finland, Ireland, Japan, Nigeria, and Spain indicate that wild birds worldwide are being exposed

to the virus (Nawathe et al. 1978, Wilcox et al. 1983, Gardner et al. 1997, Ogawa et al. 1998,

Hollmen et al. 2000, Campbell 2001, Hoffe et al. 2001, Gauthier-Clerc et al. 2002). Anecdotal

evidence from these studies suggests that exposure to IBDV in wild birds of North America may

be the result of spill-over, the transmission of contagious agents from reservoir animal

populations (often domesticated species) to wildlife occupying the same area (Daszak and

Cunningham 2000). Potential transmission mechanisms are the use of poultry farms, human

activity, disposal of poultry products, the use of poultry litter as fertilizer, and contact with

infected wild birds.

Use of Poultry Farms

The farm environment provides valuable habitat for wildlife, and wild birds in North

America may become exposed to IBDV through their use of poultry farms. This includes both

large commercial operations where wild birds may use drainage ponds and small farms with

free-range poultry where direct contact with wild birds is possible. At the poultry farm of the

National Veterinary Research Institute in Nigeria, evidence of exposure to IBDV serotypee not

identified) was found in six of 50 wild birds captured on the farm. Chickens on the poultry farm

housed in the commercial type setting and those kept as free ranging "back-yard" birds had been









exposed as well serotypee not identified). The authors did not investigate the source of exposure

in these wild birds, but suggested that it could have been the domestic poultry (Nawathe et al.

1978).

When blood samples were collected from 11 species of wild water birds in Western

Australia, evidence of exposure to IBDV serotypee not identified) was found in 7 species

(Wilcox et al. 1983). Antibodies to the virus were most commonly detected in black ducks

(Ana~s superciliosa) from the Perth area. The authors reported that farm ponds used to collect

drainage from poultry sheds are common on commercial poultry farms in Perth, and that black

ducks had been observed using these fresh water ponds.

Sera from king penguins (Aptenodytes patagonicus) on Possession Island of the Crozet

Archipelago in the South Indian Ocean were examined for antibodies to IBDV serotypes 1 and 2.

Chicks and adults had been exposed to both serotypes of the virus. For many years there was a

poultry yard with domestic chickens and ducks in the scientific station on Possession Island.

Although the authors did not know whether any of the domestic poultry had been exposed to

IBDV, these domestic birds did have daily contact with wild birds (Gauthier-Cleric et al. 2002).

Human Activity and Disposal of Poultry Products

It has also been suggested that human activity and disposal of poultry products could be

sources of exposure for wild birds. Gauthier-Cleric et al. (2002) reported that since the 1960s the

beach of the king penguin colony where birds were found to have been exposed to IBDV, was

the main landing point for people, equipment, and food destined for the research station.

Although the authors did not investigate potential exposure mechanisms, the virus may have

been introduced by human activity on the island or by sewage from the poultry yard that was

discharged untreated into a field.









Disposal of poultry products is suspected as the source of exposure in common elders

(Somateria mollissima) and herring gulls (Larus argentatus) in two mixed species breeding

colonies along the Finnish coast. The colony that was close to human development had

significantly greater prevalence of exposure to IBDV serotype 1. Herring gulls from this colony

were observed foraging at a nearby landfill. The authors proposed that gulls foraging at the

landfill may have come in contact with the virus through waste from poultry farms, and then

transmitted the virus when they returned to feed their young (Hollmen et al. 2000).

Human activity is suspected in exposure of two species of Antarctic penguins

(Aptenodytes forsteri and Pygoscelis adeliae) to IBDV serotypee not identified) as evidence of

exposure was found in colonies near centers of human activity, but none of the samples collected

from penguins in a remote and rarely visited site had antibodies to the virus. Authors suggested

that the virus may be spread by people on their footwear, clothing, equipment, or vehicles as they

move around Antarctica. They also proposed that inappropriate disposal of imported poultry

products may have been involved as wild birds could have become exposed when scavenging on

waste and then transmitted the virus to other birds in the area (Gardner et al. 1997).

Use of Poultry Litter as Fertilizer

Poultry litter containing feces is used as fertilizer in the agricultural industry, and this

practice may be involved in transmission of IBDV from domestic operations to the wild. The

virus can be transmitted in chickens through contact with infected feces, but IBDV does not

survive the Maryland Method of dead bird composting, otherwise known as two stage

composting (Murphy 1990). Therefore, the material itself if properly composted is probably not

the source of infection. But lesser mealworms (Alphitobius diaperinus Panzer)~PPP~~~~PPP~~~PPP commonly

inhabit poultry houses where they live in poultry droppings and litter, and the IBDV serotypee









not identified) has been isolated from adult lesser mealworms up to 14 days after exposure

(McAllister et al. 1995, Dunford and Kaufman 2006). Mealworms could be transferred from the

poultry house to the wild if litter and feces infested with mealworms is spread on fields as

fertilizer (Dunford and Kaufman 2006). Presence of the lesser mealworm has been confirmed in

Alachua, Broward, Charlotte, Clay, Dade, Hillsborough, Indian River, Manatee, Marion, Orange,

Pasco, Pinellas, Polk, Putnam, and Volusia counties and probably occurs throughout the state of

Florida (Dunford and Kaufman 2006).

Contact with Wild Birds

Wild birds for whom the virus is not pathogenic may act as reservoirs of the virus

(Nawathe et al. 1978, Wilcox et al. 1983). To address this question, van den Berg et al. (2001)

performed experimental infections of 3-6 week old commercial pheasants (Pha~sianus

colchicus), grey partridges (Perdix perdix), Japanese quail (Coturnix coturnix jponica), and

guinea fowl (Numida meleagris) using the very virulent strain of IBDV serotypee 1). These

species were chosen because they are closely related evolutionarily to domestic fowl, and

because they are commonly released for hunting or ornamental purposes.

None of these species exhibited clinical signs of illness. Guinea fowl were found to be

fully refractory to infection. Some pheasants and partridges seroconverted, but none excreted the

virus. Quail were susceptible to infection and shed the virus in feces for up to 7 days. Therefore,

Japanese quail have the potential to act as a reservoir of the very virulent strain serotype 1 virus.

However, results from this study do not support the findings of Weisman and Hitchner (1978)

who found Coturnix quail (species not specified) to be refractory to IBDV, although they used

the Classical Strain serotype 1 virus. Therefore Coturnix quail appear capable of transmitting

and being a reservoir of at least one strain of IBDV.









Van den Berg et al. (2001) concluded that persistence of IBDV in wild bird populations is

unlikely to occur and that the source of infection has to be found in poultry farms or the

environment. Captive-reared whooping cranes released in Florida spend the majority of their

time on farms and ranches. These range from large ranches that specialize in cattle and crops, to

smaller farms where owners keep "back-yard" chickens. In addition, the use of litter from

poultry operations as fertilizer is common on some farms. Therefore it is possible that whooping

crane exposure may be a result of their use of the farm environment, or exposure to wild birds

that act as reservoirs of the virus.

For contact with wild birds to be a potential exposure mechanism for whooping cranes, it

first needs to be shown that wild birds utilizing the same habitat have been exposed to the virus.

I tested the hypothesis that wild turkeys (M~eleagris gallopavo), Florida sandhill cranes (Grus

canadensis pratensis), and Florida bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus florid ana)~~~ddd~~~ have been

exposed to IBDV. These 3 species were chosen based on likelihood of interaction (based on

personal observations made during the 4 years I monitored whooping cranes), and previous

research regarding susceptibility to IBDV in closely related domestic species

I found no previous research on susceptibility of sandhill cranes to IBDV. They were

included because they are closely related to whooping cranes (both in genus Grus), and are the

species I observed captive-reared whooping cranes interacting with most regularly after release.

Wild turkeys were chosen because previous research indicates that domestic turkeys can be

carriers of IBDV. When domestic turkeys are exposed to IBDV they respond serologically and

are capable of transmitting the virus, but do not develop clinical disease (Giambrone et al. 1978,

Weisman and Hitchner 1978, Jackwood et al. 1981, Barnes et al. 1982). If wild turkeys are also

carriers, then they are likely candidates to be natural reservoirs of the virus. In addition, IBDV









serotype 2 has been detected in domestic turkeys in the United States (Jackwood et al. 1982,

Chin et al. 1984). Although I observed minimal interaction between wild turkeys and whooping

cranes, wild turkeys were observed foraging in the same pastures used by whooping cranes.

Florida bobwhite quail also share habitat with whooping cranes. Although I never

observed direct interaction between these two species, both were observed using edge habitat in

agricultural areas. No studies have been published on prevalence of IBDV in this species of

quail. However, previous research indicates that Coturnix quail are capable of transmitting at

least 1 strain of the virus, serotype 1 (van den Berg 2001). Although Coturnix quail are in a

different family (Old World quail of the family Phasianidae) than bobwhite quail (New World

Quail of the Family Odontophoridae), it is possible that they are capable of transmitting the virus

as well. In addition, there is another mode of transmission of the virus from a domestic source

into the wild in Florida as pen-raised bobwhite quail are often released for dog training and

hunting (Wiley 2005).

Materials and Methods

Wild Turkey

To determine if populations of wild turkey had been exposed to IBDV, 596 blood

samples were collected from wild turkeys at 24 locations in 21 counties throughout Florida

(DeSoto, Gadsden, Glades, Hernando, Highlands, Holmes, Jefferson, Lake, Leon, Levy,

Wakulla, Madison, Martin, Orange, Osceola, Palm Beach, Pasco, Polk, Putnam, Sumter,

Wakulla) and 3 adj oining plantations in Thomas and Grady counties in southern Georgia (Figure

3-1).

Two methods were used to collect these samples. During the 2004, 2005, and 2006

spring turkey-hunting seasons, 434 blood samples were collected from hunter-harvested wild

turkeys (Table 3-1). When hunters brought a bird to the check station, it was hung upside down









by the feet. An incision, 2.5-5.1 cm in length, was made in the right side of the neck. This

would cut the jugular vein, releasing blood. A lithium heparinized vacutainer was held beneath

the incision and as much blood as possible was collected. From December 2003 through January

2007, 162 blood samples were collected from live birds captured with rocket nets (Table 3-2).

Between 1 and 2 mL of blood was collected from the medial metatarsal vein using a 25-gauge

needle. After collection, blood was transferred into a lithium heparinized vacutainer.

All blood samples were kept cold until they were spun down and the serum collected. The

serum was frozen until it was sent to the Poultry Diagnostic & Research Center (College of

Veterinary Medicine, University of Georgia, 953 College Station Road, Athens, GA 30602) for

evaluation. All serum samples were tested for IBDV serotype 2 antibodies using the beta

procedure (constant virus/diluted serum) described in Chapter 2.

It is unknown what titer level indicates true exposure to IBDV. Previous studies of wild

birds have considered titer levels ranging from 1:16 to 1:80 as evidence of exposure (Wilcox et

al. 1983, Gardner et al. 1997, Ogawa et al. 1998, Hollmen et al. 2000, van den Berg 2001). For

the purposes of this study I assumed a titer level of 1:16 or less was not indicative of exposure to

the virus. Birds with a titer level of 1:32 or greater were considered exposed to the virus.

The Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric ANOVA and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to

determine if average titer level differed by location and year respectively. Post-hoc comparisons

were performed using Wilcoxon rank sum tests. To determine if likelihood of exposure (# birds

with titer level > 1:32) was independent of location and year, a likelihood ratio (G) test for

independence was used. Post-hoc comparisons were performed using the likelihood ratio test as

well. All tests were 2-tailed and considered significant at P I 0.05. Analysis was performed

using the statistical software JMP 7 (SAS Institute 2007).









Florida Bobwhite Quail

I hoped to obtain blood samples from harvested Florida bobwhite quail in a manner

similar to that of harvested wild turkeys. However, due to the smaller size of bobwhite quail I

was unable to get a sufficient serum sample by collecting blood in a heparinized vacutainer post

mortem, spinning it down, and separating the serum. Therefore, I conducted a pilot study to test

the feasibility of collecting blood with fi1ter paper strips. This method allows for the

determination of antibody titer level with a much smaller amount of blood. First, I investigated

whether enough blood could be collected from dead quail to perform the analysis. Then I

examined whether this method provided an accurate measure of antibody titer level for IBDV

serotype 2.

To examine whether enough blood could be collected from harvested Florida bobwhite

quail to perform the analysis, 11 samples were collected from birds harvested in November of

2004 on Babcock-Webb WMA in Charlotte County. Collectors were instructed to cut the

jugular or brachial vein and saturate 100 diameter Nebuto blood fi1ter strips (Advantec MFS,

Inc., 6691 Owens Dr., Pleasanton, CA, 94588) with as much blood as possible. The goal was to

completely saturate the fi1ter paper strip with blood. Then the filter paper strip was placed in a

small plastic bottle with a desiccant pack (Schleicher & Schuell BioScience, 10 Optical Ave.,

Keene, NH, 03431). Bottles with filter paper strips and desiccant were then sent to the lab for

analysis.

To test the accuracy of the antibody titer level resulting from samples collected with filter

paper strips, serum and filter paper samples were compared for 4 harvested turkeys and 12 live

chickens. Blood was collected in a heparinized vacutainer. Then a filter paper strip was placed

in the vial and saturated with blood. The remaining blood in the vial was spun down, and the

serum separated. Each sample was analyzed for antibodies to IBDV serotype 2.









Florida Sandhill Crane

To determine if antibodies to IBDV serotype 2 were present in Florida sandhill cranes, 53

blood samples were collected in seven counties in central Florida: Hernando, Highlands, Lake,

Orange, Osceola, Polk, and Sumter (Figure 3-2). Seven samples were opportunistically collected

from adult sandhill cranes. Four samples were obtained from dead or injured birds (3 from

Osceola County and 1 from Orange County), 2 were collected from nuisance birds (1 from

Highlands County and 1 from Lake County), and 1 was acquired from an extremely tame bird

that we were able to hand grab while capturing chicks at Moss Park in Orange County.

Forty-six samples were collected from pre-fledgling sandhill crane chicks captured

during the 2004, 2005, and 2006 breeding seasons (3 from Hernando County, 7 from Polk

County, 2 from Sumter County, 30 from Osceola County, and 4 from Orange County). Chicks

ranged in age from approximately 25 to 65 days old.

Capture teams of 3 to 5 wildlife biologists drove through known crane-breeding areas

looking for families. Chicks selected for capture were at least 2 weeks of age, and no older than

approximately 70 days so they could not fly. If the chicks could be captured safely, the team

drove as close as possible to the family and ran out and captured the chicks by hand.

Between 1 and 2 mL of blood were collected from the medial metatarsal vein using a 25-

gauge needle. After collection blood was transferred to a lithium heparinized vacutainer.

Pictures were taken of the chicks' head, wings, and body so that age estimate could be

confirmed. Chicks judged to be at least 50 days old were banded with color bands and/or

aluminum FWS bands. Average handling time was 15 minutes, with a range from 6 to 29

minutes. Handling time for each chick varied based on the number of chicks (single or twins),

the ease with which I was able to get a blood sample, whether the chick(s) was old enough to be

banded, and the capture team's level of experience. All blood samples collected from sandhill









cranes were handled in the same manner, and evaluated using the same criteria as was used for

wild turkeys.

To determine if likelihood of exposure (# birds with titer level > 1:32) was independent

of age, a likelihood ratio (G) test for independence was used. To determine if average titer level

differed by age, a Wilcoxon rank sum test was used. All tests were 2-tailed and considered

significant at P I 0.05. Analysis was performed using the statistical software JMP 7 (SAS

Institute 2007).

Results

Wild Turkey

Overall, 6% of wild turkeys were exposed to IBDV serotype 2 (n = 596, mean = 1:7, SE =

1, median = 1:2, range = 1:0 to 1:256, Figure 3-3). Evidence of exposure was found in 8

counties in Florida (Hernando, Highlands, Lake, Osceola, Pasco, Polk, Putnam, Sumter) and 1

county in southern Georgia (Grady).

Exposure prevalence (% samples with titer level >1:32) was 13% in 2003/04, 13% in

2004/05, 1% in 2005/06, and 0% in 2006/07 (Table 3-3). To investigate whether exposure

prevalence and average titer level differed significantly between years, I analyzed the Hyve sites

where 10 or more samples were collected in multiple years: Caravelle Ranch WMA-2004 vs.

2005, Half Moon WMA-2004 vs. 2006, Richloam WMA-2004 vs. 2006, Three Lakes WMA-

2005 vs. 2006, and Triple N Ranch WMA-2005 vs. 2006. Exposure prevalence differed

significantly between years at all sites, and average titer level differed significantly between

years at all sites except Richloam WMA (Table 3-4). Exposure prevalence and titer level

decreased over time at all sites except Caravelle Ranch WMA where there was an increase

(Figure 3-4).









Site specific exposure prevalence ranged from 0% to 30%, with 14 sites having no

detectable evidence of exposure (Figure 3-1). Exposure prevalence (P=0.0003) and average titer

level (P<0.0001) differed significantly between the sample sites. When performing individual

comparisons I eliminated all sites where less than 10 samples were collected (Andrews WMA,

Choctawhatchee River WMA, Tosohatchee WMA, and Upper Hillsborough WMA). The two

sites with the highest exposure prevalence, Triple N Ranch WMA (3 0%) and Half Moon WMA

(24%), did not differ significantly from each other but had significantly higher exposure

prevalence than most other sites. Exposure prevalence on Triple N Ranch WMA was

significantly greater than exposure prevalence on all sites except Brooksville (8%) and Lake

Panasoffkee WMA (8%). Exposure prevalence on Half Moon WMA was significantly greater

than exposure prevalence on all sites except South Georgia (5%), Brooksville, and Lake

Panasoffkee WMA.


When locations were combined into regions (area with a 10.5 mile radius) there was still

a significant difference in exposure prevalence (P=0.0020) and average titer level (P<0.0001).

The two regions with the highest exposure prevalence were the one that included Half Moon

WMA and the one that included Triple N Ranch WMA. Exposure prevalence decreased to 19%

on Half Moon WMA and 9% on Triple N Ranch WMA. This caused the exposure prevalence of

Half Moon WMA to become significantly higher than that of Triple N Ranch WMA. When

locations were combined the number of sites that Half Moon WMA was significantly greater

than was reduced from 18 to 14, and the number of sites that Triple N Ranch WMA was

significantly greater than was reduced from 19 to 10. The only site that Triple N Ranch WMA

did not differ from alone but differed from when combined by region was the site that was

combined with Half Moon WMA.









Florida Bobwhite Quail

None of the 11 fi1ter paper samples collected on Babcock-Webb WMA were completely

saturated with blood. All were analyzed, and each had a titer level of 1:0. However, of the 16

serum and fi1ter paper samples compared, none resulted in matching titer levels. For 6 birds the

filter paper method overestimated antibody titer level, and for 10 birds it underestimated

antibody titer level (Figure 3-7).

Florida Sandhill Crane

Overall, 7.5% of sandhill cranes were exposed to IBDV serotype 2 (n = 53, mean = 1:10,

SE = 3, median = 1:4, range = 1:0 to 1:128,). Exposure prevalence (p=0.0025) and average titer

level (p=0.0155) were significantly higher in adults than juveniles (Figure 3-6). Forty-three

percent of adults were exposed to the virus (mean = 1:37, SE = 17, median = 1:16, range = 1:0 to

1:128). Two percent of juveniles were exposed to the virus (mean = 1:6, SE = 1, median = 1:3,

range = 1:0 to 1:32).

Discussion

The hypothesis that wild turkeys and sandhill cranes in Florida have been exposed to

IBDV serotype 2 was supported. Overall prevalence of exposure in wild turkeys remained

constant during the 2003/04 and 2004/05 sampling years and then decreased thereafter,

suggesting that viral occurrence may be cyclic in nature. This was supported by exposure

prevalence decreasing significantly between years on all sites tested except Caravelle Ranch

WMA where exposure prevalence increased. But this is the only site where both years used for

comparison were during the sampling years (2003/04 and 2004/05) when overall exposure

prevalence remained constant.









I was unable to assess site specific variation in exposure prevalence of sandhill cranes

due to small samples sizes, but prevalence of exposure in wild turkeys did vary among sites.

However, this result must be interpreted with caution as 12 of the 14 sites with no detectable

evidence of exposure were sites sampled only in 2006, a year with extremely low exposure

prevalence statewide. If viral occurrence is cyclic in nature then differences in site specific

exposure may be the result of populations being in different phases of this cycle.

Adult sandhill cranes captured for this study had significantly higher seroprevalence and

average titer level than juveniles. Although the adult sample size was small, this is consistent

with findings of Spalding et al. (2006) that exposure prevalence in whooping cranes increases

with age.

I was unable to assess the prevalence of exposure to IBDV serotype 2 in Florida

bobwhite quail. Collecting a sufficient amount of blood for analysis from harvested birds proved

difficult, and results from the fi1ter paper comparative study demonstrated that the resulting titer

levels were not accurate. Therefore the use of filter paper strips was not a reliable method to

determine the antibody titer level for IBDV serotype 2 in Florida bobwhite quail.

Hunters involved in the pilot study on Babcock-Webb WMA were cooperative and

exhibited interest in being involved in the investigation of disease prevalence in Florida

bobwhite quail. Large numbers of quail are harvested each year and present an opportunity to

investigate disease issues in this species. Alternative methods for collecting blood from

harvested quail that could be used for disease studies should be explored. But it appears that

future research investigating prevalence of IBDV would have to involve sacrificing quail

specifically for the disease study or live trapping to collect blood samples.
















-Ordway-Swisher Presenre

AndewsWMACaravelle Ranch WM~A 4%~
Half M~oon WMALtcyc 24%--- Seminole Foret WVMA
Lake Panasoffee WMA 8%-
,Tosohatchee WnMA
Brooksvl lie -
Richloam WMA 5"/rP Bull Creek WMdA 6%~
Green Swamp WMA# IIp~ I~ ~; Triple N Ranch WMA 30%6
?-Rivers Rand
'Three Lakes WMA 5%g
.1pper '-lmlrorough WMA 139
Hickory Hammock WMrA
AvonR Park Bo mbing Ran ge4?-
Dupuis WMA
Sharp's Ranch
Co rbett WM A
Fisheating Creek W
Lykes Brothers Ran








Figure 3-1. Blood collection sites for wild turkey samples collected from December 2003
through January 2007 (n=596). Exposure prevalence is listed beside each location.
Locations with no percent listed had 0% exposure prevalence.


Table 3 -1. Number of blood samples collected from harvested wild turkeys during the 2004,
2005, and 2006 spring turkey seasons.
Location County n


Choctawhatchee River WMA


tTall Tim~bers Re~search Station
-South Geor la Plantations 5%u


Andrews WMA
Avon Park Bombing Range
Private properties near Brooksville
Bull Creek WMA
Choctawhatchee River WMA and private
property
Corbett WMA
Dupuis WMA
Fisheating Creek WMA
Green Swamp WMA
Half Moon WMA


Levy
Polk, Highlands
Hernando
Osceola
Holmes


Palm Beach
Martin, Palm Beach
Glades
Polk, Sumter, Lake, Pasco
Sumter











County n
Highlands 11
Sumter 13
Hernando, Pasco, Sumter, Lake 44
Lake 16
Madison, Wakulla, Leon, Gadsen, 11
Jefferson
Osceola 74
Orange 8
Osceola 23
Polk, Pasco 8


Table 3-2. Number of blood samples collected from wild turkeys using rocket nets from
December 2003 through January 2007.
Location County n
Caravelle Ranch WMA Putnam 71
Ordway/Swisher Preserve Putnam 21
Lykes Brothers Ranch Glades 18
Sharp's Ranch DeSoto 13
2-Rivers Ranch Hillsborough 13
Three Lakes WMA Osceola 7
Private Plantations, South Georgia Thomas, Grady 19


Table 3-1. Continued
Location
Hickory Hammock WMA and private property
Lake Panasoffkee WMA
Richloam WMA
Seminole Forest WMA
Tall Timbers Research Station and private
property
Three Lakes WMA
Tosohatchee WMA
Triple N Ranch WMA
Upper Hillsborough WMA


















Surnter Count
Hernando Cou ntI M Orange County

Polk Countb Osoeola County














Figure 3-2. Blood collection sites for Florida sandhill crane samples collected during 2004, 2005,
and 2006 (n=53).





Table 3-3.
Year


2003/04 95 1:14 4 1:02 1:0 to 1:256
2004/05 128 1:12 2 1:04 1:0 to 1:128
2005/06 353 1:05 0.3 1:02 1:0 to 1:32
2006/07 20 1:00 0.1 1:00 1:0 to 1:2


200 m


0 +


0 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256
Titer Level

Figure 3-3. Frequency of titer levels for all wild turkey samples collected from December 2003
through January 2007 (n=596).


Statistical results for yearly exposure prevalence in wild turkeys.
n Mean SE Median Range













90% -1 OYear 1
SYear 2
80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%
%o 0%o 0%o 0%
0%
Caravelle Half Moon Richloam Three Lakes Triple N Ranch
Ranch

Figure 3-4. Wild turkey exposure prevalence (% birds with titer level >1:32) at five sample sites
where 10 or more samples were collected in multiple years.


Table 3-4. P-values for difference in yearly exposure prevalence and average titer level in wild
turkeys at sites where more than 10 samples were collected.
Location nl n2 Average Titer Exposure Prevalence
Level
Caravelle Ranch WMA 36 in 2004 35 in 2005 P<0.0001 P=0.0364
Half Moon WMA 15 in 2004 19 in 2005 P=0.0002 P=0.0011
Richloam WMA 16 in 2004 28 in 2006 NSD P=0.0401
Three Lakes WMA 21 in 2005 53 in 2006 P=0.0362 P=0.0012
Triple N Ranch WMA 11 in 2005 12 in 2006 P=0.0080 P=0.0002


100%



























0 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256
Titer Level
Figure 3-5. Frequency of titer levels for Florida sandhill cranes captured in 2004, 2005, and
2006 (n=53).


O Juveniles


I I


SAdults


I n













68
64 -
O Filter Paper Strip
60-
56 -1 I 5 Serum
52-
48-
44-
40 -- -
S36-
~32-
S28-
24-
20-
16-












Figure 3-6. Titer level results for serum/filter paper comparisons.









CHAPTER 4
ARCHIVED SAMPLES

Introduction

The original source of IBDV serotype 2 in wild bird of Florida is unknown. There are

many possibilities related to domestic poultry operations such as transmission of the virus by

poultry workers on contaminated footwear, inappropriate disposal of poultry products, and the

use of litter containing feces as fertilizer in agricultural operations. But once it was determined

that some cranes in captive-rearing facilities had been exposed to IBDV, there was concern that

captive-reared cranes may be responsible for introducing the virus to wild birds of Florida

(Hartup and Sellers 2006). There have been instances when captive-bred animals exposed to a

pathogen in the captive facility, exposed wild animals in and around the release site to those

pathogens (Spalding et al.1996, Snyder et al. 1996, Woodford and Rossiter 1994). This

possibility could be eliminated if it was determined that wild birds in Florida had been exposed

to the virus prior to the release of captive-reared cranes, or in areas where contact with captive-

reared cranes was highly unlikely.

Sandhill cranes reared at Patuxent Wildlife Research Center in Laurel, Maryland were

sporadically released into Florida from 1971 1991 as preliminary trials to develop release

techniques for captive-reared whooping cranes. Fourteen 5-month-old captive-reared sandhill

cranes were released in 1971 near Palmdale in Glades County (Figure 4-1). None of these birds

were observed associating with wild sandhill cranes and all died within 3 months without leaving

the immediate area (Nesbitt 1978). From 1974 1976, 4 captive-reared sandhill cranes ranging

from 6 months to 4 years-of-age were released on Paynes Prairie in Alachua County (Figure 4-

1). Three died and 1 paired with a wild sandhill crane and set up a territory on Paynes Prairie

(Nesbitt 1978). Additional releases took place on Paynes Prairie from 1986 1987. Twenty-









seven 9 to 10-month-old captive-reared sandhill cranes were released. Survivors dispersed to

Gilchrist, Levy, Marion, Putnam, and Sumter counties (Nesbitt and Carpenter 1993) (Figure 4-

1). In 1991, 15 captive-reared sandhill cranes ranging from 1 to 2 years-of-age were placed in a

holding pen on Kanapaha Prairie in Alachua County (Figure 4-1). The 11 surviving birds were

then moved to a release pen on the Prairie Unit of Three Lakes WMA in Osceola County (Figure

4-1). Some experimental birds interacted with wild sandhill cranes, and two formed pairs with

wild sandhill cranes (Nesbitt and Folk 1992). In 1993, the first captive-reared whooping cranes

were released at Three Lakes WMA.

Materials and Methods

I was unable to locate any blood samples collected prior to 1971. As a result I could not

test the hypothesis that wild birds in Florida were exposed to IBDV serotype 2 prior to the

release of captive-reared cranes. Instead, I analyzed samples collected from wild birds in an area

where contact with captive-reared cranes was highly unlikely, and hypothesized that these birds

had been exposed to the virus.

From 1991 2000, Dr. Marilyn Spalding archived 477 wild sandhill crane serum samples

collected in 7 counties (Alachua, Citrus, Lake, Levy, Marion, Osceola, Sumter) in Florida.

Samples were eliminated from consideration if they were collected in a county after captive-

reared cranes had been released there or were known to have dispersed there. Unfortunately, this

eliminated from consideration all but 3 samples collected in Lake County in 1993 (Figure 4-1).

These samples were tested for antibodies to IBDV serotype 2. The archived samples also

included serum collected from captive-reared sandhill cranes prior to their release on Three

Lakes WMA in 1991. Samples for 10 of the 11 birds released were tested for antibodies to

IBDV serotype 2.










To gain further insight into prevalence of exposure and length of time the virus has been

present in wild sandhill cranes of Florida, 108 archived serum samples collected in Alachua

County (northern Florida) and Osceola County (central Florida) from May 1992 March 1998

were tested for antibodies to IBDV serotype 2. These samples came from 98 individuals.

All serum samples were sent to the Poultry Diagnostic & Research Center (College of

Veterinary Medicine, University of Georgia, 953 College Station Road, Athens, GA 30602) for

evaluation. They were tested for IBDV serotype 2 antibodies using the beta procedure (constant

virus/diluted serum) described in Chapter 2.

It is unknown what titer level indicates true exposure to IBDV. Previous studies of wild

birds have considered titer levels ranging from 1:16 to 1:80 as evidence of exposure (van den

Berg 2001, Hollmen et al. 2000, Ogawa et al. 1998, Gardner et al., 1997, Wilcox et al. 1983).

For the purposes of this study I assumed that a titer level of 1:16 or less was not indicative of

exposure to the virus. Birds with a titer level of 1:32 or greater were considered exposed to the

V1TUS.

I detected an age effect on seroprevalence in the sandhill crane samples collected for this

study (reported in Chapter 3); however, the adult sample size was small (n = 7). Analysis of the

archived samples separated by age allowed for further investigation of this finding. Samples

were separated into age categories. Juveniles ranged in age from 55 days to 10 months.

Subadults ranged from 12 months to 2.7 years. Adults ranged from 3 to 10+ years. To

determine if likelihood of exposure (# samples with titer level > 1:32) was independent of age,

the likelihood ratio (G) test for independence was used. Post-hoc analysis on each pair of

treatments was done using the same test. To determine if average titer level differed by age, a









Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric ANOVA was used. Post-hoc analysis on each pair of treatments

was done using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.

Exposure prevalence and average titer level of wild turkeys sampled in this study

(reported in Chapter 3) differed significantly among locations. Analysis of archived samples

allowed for further investigation of this result. To determine if mean titer level differed between

sandhill cranes captured in Alachua and Osceola counties, a Wilcoxon rank sum test was used.

To determine if likelihood of exposure (# samples with titer level > 1:32) was independent of

location, a likelihood ratio (G) test for independence was used. All tests were 2-tailed and

considered significant at P I 0.05. Analysis was performed using the statistical software JMP 7

(SAS 2007).

Results

Of the three samples collected from wild sandhill cranes in Lake County in 1993, all birds

were exposed to IBDV serotype 2. Titer levels ranged from 1:32 to 1:128. None of the samples

collected from captive-reared sandhill cranes released on Three Lakes WMA in 1991 had titer

levels high enough to indicate exposure. Titer levels ranged from 1:0 to 1:4.

Forty-six percent of samples collected from wild sandhill cranes in Alachua and Osceola

counties had titer levels high enough to indicate exposure to IBDV serotype 2 (n = 108, median

= 1:16, range = 1:0 to 1:1024, mean = 1:52, SE = 11i). Sixty-three percent of adults, 56% of

subadults, and 13% of juveniles had been exposed to the virus (Table 4-1, Figure 4-2). Juveniles

had significantly lower exposure prevalence than both adults (P<0.0001) and subadults

(P<0.0002), but there was not a significant difference between adults and subadults. Average

titer level differed among all age groups (P<0.0001) with adults having significantly higher

average titer levels than subadults (P=0.0043) and juveniles (P<0.0001), and subadults having

significantly higher average titer levels than juveniles (p=0.0001).










Samples collected in Alachua County had significantly higher average titer level

(P=0.0291) and exposure prevalence (P=0.0307) than those collected in Osceola County. In

Alachua County, 54% of samples had titer levels high enough to indicate exposure, and earliest

evidence of exposure came from samples collected on May 7, 1992. (Table 4-2, Figure 4-3). In

Osceola County, 3 8% of birds had titer levels high enough to indicate exposure, and earliest

evidence of exposure came from samples collected on October 1, 1992 (Table 4-2, Figure 4-3).

Discussion

All 3 sandhill crane samples collected in Lake County prior to the release/dispersal of

captive-reared cranes to that area, had titer levels high enough to indicate exposure to IBDV

serotype 2. Although this may be evidence that the release of captive-reared cranes was not the

original source of the virus, I cannot discount the possibility that wild birds having contact with

captive-reared cranes dispersed to the area. Therefore, I am unable to rule out the possibility that

captive-reared cranes were the original source of the virus in wild birds of Florida. However,

because 10 of the 11 captive-reared sandhill cranes released on Three Lakes WMA in 1991 did

not have titer levels high enough to indicate exposure (1 crane was not tested), we can be fairly

confident that this particular release was not the source of the virus in wild birds of Florida.


Significantly higher exposure prevalence and average titer levels were found in adult

sandhill cranes when compared to juvenile cranes. Subadults were intermediate between adults

and juveniles as there was no statistical difference in prevalence of exposure between adults and

subadults, but there was a significant difference in mean titer level. This is because the maj ority

of subadult samples indicating exposure (75%) had a titer level of 1:32, the lowest possible titer

level to indicate exposure. There were very few samples at the higher end of the spectrum, with









no subadult birds having a titer level higher than 1:128. In contrast, 31% of adults had titer

levels greater than 1:128 and only 19% had a titer level of 1:32.

The significant trend toward higher titer levels as the birds age suggests that there is

constant re-exposure or that birds remain carriers of the virus. If sandhill cranes are re-exposed

to the virus throughout their lifetime they could mount a more effective immune response with

each subsequent exposure thus leading to higher titer levels as the birds age. Although unknown

for IBDV in cranes, birds that are carriers of a virus could have a latent infection that results in

intermittent shedding of the virus throughout their life. This could result in higher titer levels as

the birds age as well.
























Surnter County L 9~Y j ake County Release Site



Polk County Release Site ~ Three Lakes WMA



Palmdale







Figure 4-1. Captive-reared sandhill crane and whooping crane release sites (depicted with
triangles) and dispersal areas (depicted with dots). Polk and Lake County release
sites are locations where sentinel chickens were placed (Chapter 2).


Table 4-1. Statistical results for exposure prevalence by age of archived sandhill crane samples
collected in Alachua and Osceola counties from May 1992 to March 1998.
Age n Mean SE Median Range
Adult 41 1:104 27 1:64 1:4 to 1:1024
Subadult 36 1:28 4 1:32 1:2 to 1:128
Juvenile 31 1:12 3 1:04 1:0 to 1:64


Gilchrist County


Payn es Prairie


Marion County


Levy County c "
















15 --


10 -cnlc













0 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 1024
Titer Level

Figure 4-2. Frequency of titer levels for juvenile, subadult, and adult archived sandhill crane
samples collected in Alachua and Osceola counties from May 1992 to March 1998
(n=108).


Table 4-2. Statistical results for exposure prevalence by county of archived sandhill crane
samples collected in Alachua and Osceola counties from May 1992 to March 1998.
County n Mean SD Median Range
Alachua 55 1:70 149 1:32 1:2 to 1:1024
Osceola 53 1:33 53 1:16 1:0 to 1:256















12-
SOsceola County





,8-


0 6-











0 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 1024

Titer Level

Figure 4-3. Frequency of titer levels for archived sandhill crane samples collected in Alachua
and Osceola counties from May 1992 to March 1998 (n=108).









CHAPTER 5
SYNTHESIS AND SIGNIFICANCE

Wild turkeys and sandhill cranes throughout Florida have been exposed to IBDV

serotype 2. The virus has been present in Florida for at least 15 years and is available to infect

susceptible hosts. Because we know so little about the distribution of this virus in the

environment and its mode of transmission, it is imperative that we conduct further research in

order to learn what, if any, steps can be taken to minimize the effects of this virus on the survival

of endangered whooping cranes. The presence of the virus in Florida could not be linked with

certainty to the reintroduction proj ect, but the evidence is consistent with the virus being present

in the environment for a long time.

Implications for the Whooping Crane Reintroduction Project

Many of the wild turkey and sandhill crane blood collection sites overlap with areas

where whooping cranes are currently found or have been found in the past. Therefore whooping

cranes, both resident and migratory, could come in contact with wild turkeys and sandhill cranes

that have been exposed to IBDV serotype 2. In addition, although these findings do not rule out

other potential exposure mechanisms, they do suggest that post-release interaction with wild

birds of Florida is one potential exposure mechanism for whooping cranes involved in the

1997/98 and 2001/02 mortality events.

The presence of this virus in wild turkeys and sandhill cranes of Florida is especially

concerning for the resident flock of whooping cranes because they nest and raise their chicks in

Florida. When chickens are exposed to IBDV between 3 and 6 weeks of age, symptoms rapidly

appear and mortality rates can approach 30%. When chickens are exposed before 3 weeks of age

a severe, prolonged immunosuppression results, leaving the birds vulnerable to normally benign

disease agents (Lukert and Saif 2003). The effect of exposure to IBDV on prefiedgling










whooping crane chicks is unknown at this time. However, the impact to young chickens

suggests that if whooping crane chicks hatched in the wild are exposed to the virus at an early

age, this could greatly reduce chick survival potential. Conversely, the relatively high titers

maintained by adults may be passed on to the chicks and protect them at this otherwise

vulnerable period in their lives.

Age Effect on Seroprevalence

Significantly higher exposure prevalence and average titer levels were found in adult

sandhill cranes captured for this study and in archived samples, when compared to juvenile

cranes. These findings are consistent with the findings of Spalding et al. (2006) that exposure

prevalence in whooping cranes increased with age. The lower seroprevalence and titer levels in

juveniles could be explained by juvenile cranes having a shorter exposure time and immature

immune system. The higher seroprevalence and titer levels in older birds suggest that there is

constant re-exposure or that birds remain carriers of the virus. However, there is also the

possibility that this age effect on seroprevalence reflects decreased survival of sandhill cranes

infected at a young age (Schettler et al. 2001, Garvin et al. 2004). The effect of exposure on

sandhill crane chicks is unknown at this time. However, the impact to young chickens suggests

that if sandhill crane chicks hatched in the wild are exposed to the virus at an early age, chick

survival could be greatly reduced. If exposed chicks are less likely to survive then they are

consequently less likely to be sampled, biasing the chick samples toward birds that have not been

exposed to the virus. Therefore, investigation into the pathogenicity of IBDV in sandhill cranes

is warranted.

Variation in Exposure Prevalence among Sites

Prevalence of exposure in wild turkeys and archived sandhill crane samples varied

among sites. Future research should investigate exposure prevalence in relation to potential









sources of infection such as domestic poultry facilities and small family farms with free-ranging

back yard poultry. However, it is important that the research proj ect control for effect of year as

viral occurrence may be cyclic in nature.

Transmission Mechanisms

There are 2 subspecies of the sandhill crane found in Florida. The Florida sandhill crane

(Grus canadensis pratensis) is resident, and the greater sandhill crane (Grus canadensis tabida)

is migratory. These 2 subspecies interact when greater sandhill cranes are in Florida during the

winter. The role that greater sandhill cranes play in the epidemiology of IBDV in wild birds of

Florida is unknown, and certainly warrants further investigation. Out of the 108 archived

samples analyzed, 6 came from greater sandhill cranes. One of these birds had been exposed to

the virus. Therefore, greater sandhill cranes may become exposed to the virus on their wintering

grounds in Florida and carry the virus north with them. Or it is possible that greater sandhill

cranes were exposed first, and are the original source of the virus in wild birds of Florida. Either

way, this is a potential transmission mechanism for IBDV throughout the flyway.

The possibility that wild birds were exposed to the virus as a result of domestic poultry

operations or disposal of poultry products has not been addressed in this study but certainly

remains a potential source of exposure. The use of poultry litter containing feces as fertilizer in

Florida' s agricultural industry remains one potential mechanism for transmission of the virus

from domestic operations to the wild. Farmers should be educated on the importance of properly

composting chicken litter to eliminate the possibility of disease transfer. In addition,

investigation into methods that minimize the transfer of mealworms within the litter could

greatly reduce the potential for transmission from domestic operations to the wild. Research into

potential insect vectors is needed as well, and should focus on mealworms, dung beetles, and

mosquitoes.










LIST OF REFERENCES


Ahad, A. 2002. Isolation and pathogenic characterizations of IBDV isolate from an outbreak of
IBD in a rural poultry unit in Bangladesh. Thesis, The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural
University, Copenhagen, Denmark and Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh,
Bangladesh.

Allan, W. H., J. T. Faragher, and G. A. Cullen. 1972. Immunosuppression by the infectious
bursal agent in chickens immunized against Newcastle disease. Veterinary Records 90:
511-512.

Barnes, H. J., J. Wheeler, and D. Reed. 1982. Serologic evidence of infectious bursal disease
virus infection in lowa turkeys. Avian Diseases 26: 560-565.

Benton, W. J., M. S. Cover, J. K. Rosenberger, and R. S. Lake. 1967. Physicochemical
properties of the infectious bursal agent (IBA). Avian Disease 1 1: 438-445.

Berger, J. 1990. Persistence of different-sized populations: an empirical assessment of rapid
extinctions in bighorn sheep. Conservation Biology 4: 91-98.

Campbell, G. 2001. Investigation into evidence of exposure to infectious bursal disease virus
(IBDV) and chick infectious anaemia virus (CIAV) in wild birds in Ireland. Pages 230-
23 5 in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Infectious Bursal Disease and
Chicken Infectious Anaemia, 2001, Rauischholzhausen, Germany.

Chin, R. P., R. Yamamoto, L. Weiqing, K. M. Lam, and T. B. Farver. 1984. Serological survey
of infectious bursal disease virus serotypes 1 and 2 in California turkeys. Avian Diseases
28(4): 1026-1036.

Daszak, P., and A. A. Cunningham. 2000. Emerging infectious diseases of wildlife--threats to
biodiversity and human health. Science 287(5452): 443-449.

Dunford, J. C., and P. E. Kaufman. 2006. Lesser mealworm, Alphitobius diaperinus.
University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences Publication Number
EENY-367.

Folk, M. J., S. A. Nesbitt, J. M. Parker, M. G. Spalding, S. B. Baynes, and K. L. Candelora.
2006. Current status of nonmigratory whooping cranes (Grus amnericana) in Florida.
Proceedings of North American Crane Workshop 10 In Press: 00-00.

Gardner, H., K. Kerry, M. Riddle, S. Brouwer, and L. Gleeson. 1997. Poultry virus infection in
Antarctic penguins. Nature 387: 245.

Garvin, M. C., K. A. Tarvin, L. M. Stark, G. E. Woolfenden, J. W. Fitzpatrick, and J. F. Day.
2004. Arboviral infection in two species of wild jays (Aves: Corvidae): Evidence for
population impacts. J. Med. Entomol. 41(2): 215-225.










Gauthier-Cleric, M., N. Eterradossi, D. Toquin, M. Guittet, G. Kuntz, and Y. Le Maho. 2002.
Serological survey of the king penguin, Aptenodytes pata~gonicus, in Crozet Archipelago
for antibodies to infectious bursal disease, influenza A and Newcastle disease viruses.
Polar Biology 25: 316-319.

Giambrone, J. J., O. J. Fletcher, P. D. Lukert, R. K. Page, and C. E. Eidson. 1978. Experimental
infection of turkeys with infectious bursal disease virus. Avian Diseases 22: 45 1-458.

Glenn, T.C., W. Stephan, and M.J. Beaun. 1999. Effects of a population bottleneck on
whooping crane mitochondrial DNA variation. Conservation Biology 13 (5): 1097-1107

Hartup, B. K., and H. S. Sellers. 2006. Serological survey for infectious bursal disease virus
exposure in captive cranes. Proceedings of North American Crane Workshop 10 In Press:
00-00.

Hollmen, T., M. Kilpi, M. Hario, L. H. Creekmore, and M. R. Petersen. 2000. Infectious bursal
disease virus antibodies in eider ducks and herring gulls. Condor 102: 688-691.

Hoffe, U., J. M. Blanco, and E. F. Kaleta. 2001. Neutralising antibodies against infectious
bursal disease virus in sera of free-living and captive birds of prey from central Spain
(Preliminary Results). 2001. Pages 247-25 1 in Proceedings of the International
Symposium on Infectious Bursal Disease and Chicken Infectious Anaemia. 2001,
Rauischholzhausen, Germany.

Howie, R. I., and J. Thorsen. 1981. Identification of a strain of infectious bursal disease virus
isolated from mosquitoes. Canadian Journal of Comparative Medicine 45: 315-320.

Jackwood, D. J., Y. M. Saif, P. D. Moorhead, and R. N. Dearth. 1981. Infectious bursal disease
virus and Alcaligenes faecalis infections in turkeys. Avian Diseases 26: 365-374.

Jackwood, D. J., Y. M. Saif, and J. H. Hughes. 1982. Characteristics and serologic studies of
two serotypes of infectious bursal disease virus in turkeys. Avian Diseases 26 (4): 871-
882.

Jackwood, D. J., R. E. Gough, and S. E. Sommer. 2005. Neucleotide and amino acid sequence
analysis of a birnavirus isolated from penguins. Veterinary Record 156: 550-552.

Jones, K. L., T. C. Glenn, R. C. Lacy, J. R. Pierce, N. Unruh, C. M. Mirande, and F. Chavez-
Ramirez. 2002. Refining the whooping crane studbook by incorporating microsatellite
DNA and leg-banding analyses. Conservation Biology 16: 789-799.

Lafferty, K. D., and L. R. Gerber. 2002. Good medicine for conservation biology: The
intersection of epidemiology and conservation theory. Conservation Biology 16: 593-604.

Lukert, P. D., and Y. M. Saif. 2003. Infectious bursal disease. Pages 161-179 in Y. M. Saif,
editor. Diseases of Poultry. Eleventh edition. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA,
USA.










McAllister, J. C., C. D. Steelman, L. A. Newberry, and J. K. Skeeles. 1995. Isolation of
infectious bursal disease virus from the lesser mealworm, Alphitobius diaperinus (Panzer).
Poultry Science 74(1): 45-49.

Murphy, D. W. 1990. Disease transfer studies in a dead bird composer. Pages 25-29 in
Proceedings of the 1990 National Poultry Waste Management Symposium. 3 October-4
October 1990, North Carolina, USA.

Nawathe, D. R., O. Onunkwo, and I. M. Smith. 1978. Serological evidence of infection withthe
virus of infectious bursal disease in wild and domestic birds in Nigeria. Veterinary Record
102: 444.

Nesbitt, S. A. 1978. Notes on suitability of captive-reared sandhill cranes for release into the
wild. Proceedings of North American Crane Workshop: 85-88.

Nesbitt, S. A., and M. J. Folk. 1992. Whooping crane reintroduction in Florida final
performance report. Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, Research
Laboratory, Gainesville, FL, USA.

Nesbitt, S. A., and J. W. Carpenter. 1993. Survival and movements of greater sandhill cranes
experimentally released in Florida. Journal of Wildlife Management 57(4): 673-679.

O'Brien, S. J., M. E. Roelke, L. Marker, A. Newman, C. A. Winkler, D. Meltzer, L. Cooley, J. F.
Evermann, M. Bush, and D. E. Wildt. 1985. Genetic basis for species vulnerability in the
cheetah. Science 277: 1428-1434.

Ogawa, M., T. Wakuda, T. Yamaguchi, K. Murata, and A. Setiyono. 1998. Seroprevalence of
infectious bursal disease virus in free-living wild birds in Japan. Journal of Veterinary
Medical Science 60(11): 1277-1297.

O'Malley, C. M. 1990. Aedes vexans (Meigen): an old foe. Proceedings of New Jersey Mosquito
Control Association. Pages 90-95.

SAS Institute 2007. JMP 7. SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina, USA.

Schettler, E., T. Langgemach, P. Sommer, J. Streich, and K. Frolich. 2001. Seroepizootiology
of selected infectious disease agents in free-living birds of prey in Germany. Journal of
Wildlife Diseases 37(1): 145-152

Smith, B. L. 2001. Winter feeding of elk in western North America. Journal of Wildlife
Management 65(2): 173-190.

Snyder, N. F. R., S. R. Derrickson, S. R. Beissinger, J. W. Wiley, T. B. Smith, W. D. Toone, and
B. Miller. 1996. Limitations of captive breeding in endangered species recovery.
Conservation Biology 10(2): 338-348.










Spalding, M. G., J. M. Kinsella, S. A. Nesbitt, M. J. Folk, and G. W. Foster. 1996. Helminth
and arthropod parasites of experimentally introduced whooping cranes in Florida. Journal
of Wildlife Diseases 32(1): 44-50.

Spalding, M. G., H. S. Sellers, B. K. Hartup, and G. H. Olsen. 2006. A wasting syndrome in
released whooping cranes in Florida associated with infectious bursal disease titers.
Proceedings of North American Crane Workshop 10 In Press: 00-00.

Thome, T. E., and E. S. Williams. 1988. Disease and endangered species: the black-footed
ferret as a recent example. Conservation Biology 2(1): 66-74.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Whooping Crane Recovery Plan. Albuquerque, New
Mexico, USA.

van de Bildt, M. W. G., T. Kuiken, A. M. Visee, S. Lema, T. R. Fitzjohn, and A. Osterhaus.
2002. Distemper outbreak and its effect on African wild dog conservation. Emerging
Infectious Diseases 8: 211-213.

Van den Berg, T. P., A. Ons, M. Dolores, M., and J. F. Rodriguez. 2001. Experimental
inoculation of game/ornamental birds with a very virulent strain of IBDV. Pages 236-246
in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Infectious Bursal Disease and Chicken
Infectious Anaemia. 2001, Rauischholzhausen, Germany.

Varela, A., JM. Kinsella, and M. G. Spalding. 2001. Presence of encysted immature nematodes
in a released whooping crane (Grus americana). Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 32
(4): 523-525.

Weisman, J., and S. B. Hitchner. 1978. Infectious bursal disease virus infection attempts in
turkeys and cotumix quail. Avian Diseases 22: 604-608.

Wilcox, G. E., R. L. P. Flower, W. Baxendale, and J. S. Mackenzie. 1983. Serological survey of
wild birds in Australia for the prevalence of antibodies to egg drop syndrome 1976 (EDS-
76) and infectious bursal disease viruses. Avian Pathology 12:135-139.

Wiley, N. 2005. Bobwhite management and hunting in Florida' s ranchlands: an overview of
rules and regulations. Proceedings of quail management short course 1: 76-80.

Woodford, M. H., and P. B. Rossiter. 1994. Disease risks associated with wildlife translocation
projects. Pages 178-198 in Olney, P. J. S., Mace, G. M. and A. T. C. Feistner, editors.
Creative Conservation. Chapman & Hall, London, UK.

Woodroffe, R. 1999. Managing disease threats to wild mammals. Animal Conservation 2: 185-
193.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Kristen Lee Candelora was born in Gainesville, FL in 1974. She grew up in Tampa,

graduating from Chamberlain High School in 1992. Kristen earned a B.A. in psychology from

the University of North Carolina at Wilmington in 1997. Following graduation, she returned to

Tampa to work as a Crisis Counselor on a Baker Act Unit.

Kristen earned a B.S. in wildlife ecology and conservation from the University of Florida

in 2002. Upon graduation, she began work as a Whooping Crane Biologist for the Florida Fish

and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). After working for FWC for two years, Kristen

entered the Wildlife Ecology and Conservation M. S. program at the University of Florida. She

continued working for FWC while completing her master' s proj ect. She received the Best

Student Paper award at the 10th North American Crane Workshop in Zacatecas, Mexico and the

Florida Chapter of The Wildlife Society spring meeting in Cocoa Beach, Florida.

Upon completion of her M.S. program, Kristen began work as the Private Lands

Coordinator for the Upland Ecosystem Restoration Proj ect.





PAGE 1

1 INFECTIOUS BURSAL DISEASE VIRUS IN WILD TURKEYS AND SANDHILL CRANES OF FLORIDA By KRISTEN L. CANDELORA A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007

PAGE 2

2 2007 Kristen L. Candelora

PAGE 3

3 To my parents, Richard and Betty Candelora; wi thout their support, none of this would have been possible.

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank Larry Perrin, Roger Shie lds, and Jeremy Olson for al lowing me to participate in the research project inve stigating the use of camera traps as a potential method for wild turkey population estimation. This collaboration not only contributed samples to the project, but also resulted in alternate collection methods that ul timately were responsible for the majority of samples collected. I also thank my committee me mbers, Marilyn Spalding, Franklin Percival, Bill Guiliano, and Steve Nesbitt for their guidance and patience. I am especially grateful to Marilyn Spalding who spent countless hours guiding the direction of the project and reviewing my thesis, and contributed archived sandhill crane samples for analysis. My sincere thanks go to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Comm ission (FWC) biologists w ho were integral in acquiring data from wild turkey populations on W ildlife Management Areas in Florida (David Blood, Pam Boody, Mike Brooks, Victor Chavez, Matthew Chopp, Jean-Marie Conners, Nancy Dwyer, Tim Farley, Steve Glass, Lewis Gon zales, Linda King, Tom ONeil, Jayde Roof, Nicholas Snavely, Valerie Sparling, Rick Spra tt, Grant Steelman, Justin Nolte, and Jason Williams) and the check station operators work ing on those areas. I acknowledge the FWC Whooping Crane Reintroduction Program biologists J eannette Parker, Marty Folk, Steve Baynes, and Kathy Chappell who went above and beyond th e call of duty collectin g data from wild Florida sandhill cranes and sentinel chickens. I thank Holly Sellers for analyzing all samples collected for this study, and Jamie Miller for her t echnical and administrative assistance. I thank Charlie Luthin and the Natural Resources Foundation of Wisconsin for their generous support. Most of all my tremendous gratitude goes to my parents, Richard and Betty Candelora, for making my schooling a priority and for always giving me their constant support in every way.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........7 LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................ .........8 ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ..............9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................11 Mortality Events............................................................................................................... ......12 Epidemiology of Infectious Bursal Disease...........................................................................13 Impact of Disease on Population Recovery............................................................................14 Objectives..................................................................................................................... ..........17 2 SENTIENEL CHICKENS......................................................................................................18 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........18 Materials and Methods.......................................................................................................... .18 Lake County Release Site................................................................................................18 Polk County Release Site................................................................................................20 Blood Collection and Analysis........................................................................................20 Bursal Fluid Aspiration...................................................................................................21 Results........................................................................................................................ .............22 Lake County: December 2003 through April 2004.........................................................22 Polk County: December 2004 through May 2005...........................................................22 Discussion..................................................................................................................... ..........23 3 INFECTIOUS BURSAL DISEASE IN WILD BIRDS OF FLORIDA.................................30 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........30 Use of Poultry Farms.......................................................................................................30 Human Activity and Disposal of Poultry Products.........................................................31 Contact with Wild Birds..................................................................................................33 Materials and Methods.......................................................................................................... .35 Wild Turkey.................................................................................................................... .35 Florida Bobwhite Quail...................................................................................................37 Florida Sandhill Crane.....................................................................................................38 Results........................................................................................................................ .............39 Wild Turkey.................................................................................................................... .39 Florida Bobwhite Quail...................................................................................................41 Florida Sandhill Crane.....................................................................................................41

PAGE 6

6 Discussion..................................................................................................................... ..........41 4 ARCHIVED SAMPLES.........................................................................................................50 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........50 Materials and Methods.......................................................................................................... .51 Results........................................................................................................................ .............53 Discussion..................................................................................................................... ..........54 5 SYNTHESIS AND SIGNIFICANCE....................................................................................59 Implications for the Whooping Crane Reintroduction Project...............................................59 Age Effect on Seroprevalence................................................................................................60 Variation in Exposure Prevalence among Sites......................................................................60 Transmission Mechanisms......................................................................................................61 LIST OF REFERENCES............................................................................................................. ..62 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.........................................................................................................66

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1 Number of blood samples collected fr om harvested wild turkeys during the 2004, 2005, and 2006 spring turkey seasons...............................................................................43 3-2 Number of blood samples collected from wild turkeys using rocket nets from December 2003 through January 2007..............................................................................44 3-3 Statistical results for yearly e xposure prevalence in wild turkeys.....................................46 3-4 P-values for difference in yearly exposure prevalence and average titer level in wild turkeys........................................................................................................................ ........47 4-1 Statistical results for ex posure prevalence by age of ar chived sandhill crane samples collected in Alachua and Osceola co unties from May 1992 to March 1998.....................56 4-2 Statistical results for exposure prev alence by county of archived sandhill crane samples collected in Alachua and Osceola counties from May 1992 to March 1998.......57

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 Timeline for Lake County release site...............................................................................26 2-2 Chicken trap locations on Lake County release site..........................................................27 2-4 Collecting blood from a chicken vi a the medial metatarsal vein.......................................28 2-5 Aspirating bursal fluid fr om the bursa of fabricius............................................................29 3-1 Blood collection sites for wild turkey samples collected from December 2003 through January 2007. ......................................................................................................43 3-2 Blood collection sites for Florida sa ndhill crane samples collected during 2004, 2005, and 2006................................................................................................................. ..45 3-3 Frequency of titer levels for all wild turkey samples collected from December 2003 through January 2007.........................................................................................................46 3-4 Wild turkey exposure prevalen ce (% birds with titer level 1:32) at five sample sites where 10 or more samples were collected in multiple years.............................................47 3-5 Frequency of titer levels for Florid a sandhill cranes captured in 2004, 2005, and 2006........................................................................................................................... .........48 3-6 Titer level results for se rum/filter paper comparisons.......................................................49

PAGE 9

9 Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science INFECTIOUS BURSAL DISEASE VIRUS IN WILD TURKEYS AND SANDHILL CRANES OF FLORIDA By Kristen L. Candelora August 2007 Chair: H. Franklin Percival Major: Wildlife Ecology and Conservation Captive-reared whooping cranes ( Grus americana) released into Florida for the resident reintroduction project e xperienced unusually high mortalit y and morbidity during the 1997/98 and 2001/02 release seasons. Inf ectious bursal disease virus (IBDV) serotype 2 is currently under investigation as the factor that precipitated the mortality events. A small percentage of whooping cranes have been exposed to IBDV in the captive setting. However, many more are being exposed post-release, and pr evalence of exposure increases w ith age or length of time the birds are in the wild in Florida. No studies have been published on the prevalence of IBDV in wild birds of North America. The goal of this st udy is to provide baseline data that can be used to create effective protocols and take measures to ensure that this virus does not impact the recovery of the endangered whooping crane. To determine if wild exposure to IBDV serot ype 2 is possible, captive sentinel chickens were monitored for exposure to the virus on wh ooping crane release sites in central Florida during the 2003/04 and 2004/05 release seasons. W ild exposure is possible as chickens on both sites became exposed to IBDV serotype 2. To examine the potential for exposure of whooping cranes from other wildlife reservoirs, blood sa mples were collected from wild turkeys ( Meleagris gallopavo ) and sandhill cranes ( Grus canadensis ) in 21 counties throughout Florida and 2

PAGE 10

10 counties in southern Georgia. There is pot ential for whooping cranes both resident and migratory, to become exposed to this virus throug h contact with wild bird s as wild turkeys and sandhill cranes in 8 counties in Florida and 1 coun ty in southern Georgia have been exposed to the virus. In addition, there is a significant age effect on sero prevalence in sandhill cranes. These findings are consistent with chicks having a shorter exposure time and immature immune system. The presence of higher seroprevalence an d higher titers in older bi rds suggests that there is constant re-exposure or that bird s remain carriers of the virus. To investigate the original source and history of the virus in wild bird s of Florida, archived serum samples collected from sandhill cranes we re tested for antibodies to IBDV serotype 2. Although I was unable to demonstrate that sandh ill cranes in Florida were exposed to IBDV prior to the introduction of captiv e-reared cranes, the high preval ence and wide distribution of the virus in both sandhill cranes and wild turkeys suggest that th e virus has been in Florida for quite some time. Many of the sites where blood was collected from wild turkeys and sandhill cranes overlap with the current distribution of w hooping cranes in Florida. The presence of this virus in wild birds in these areas is especia lly concerning for the resident flock of whooping cranes because they nest and raise their chicks in Florida. The effect of e xposure on whooping crane chicks is unknown at this time. However, the impact to young chickens suggests that if whooping crane chicks hatched in the wild are exposed to the vi rus at an early age, chick survival could be greatly reduced. Conversely, the relatively high titers maintained by adults may be passed on to the chicks and protect them at this othe rwise vulnerable period in their lives.

PAGE 11

11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The range of the whooping crane ( Grus americana ) once extended from central Canada south to Mexico, and from Utah to the Atlantic coast. In 1865, the es timated population size was 700-1,400 birds (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994). Habitat loss, unregulated hunting, and specimen collection had severe negative imp acts, and by 1937 the population was reduced to a single non-migratory flock in southwestern Louisi ana and a single migrator y flock that wintered on the Gulf coast of Texas and nested in an unknown location (later discovered to be Wood Buffalo National Park in Canada). By 1950, th e non-migratory flock had been extirpated and just 34 birds remained in the migratory flock (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994). Congress passed the Endangered Species Preservation Act in 1966, and the whooping crane was listed as threatened with extinction in 1967. In that same year the Canadian Wildlife Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servi ce began collecting eggs from birds in the Wood Buffalo flock, to generate a captive breedi ng flock of whooping cranes. The goal was to propagate whooping cranes, and reintroduce their offs pring into the areas from which they were extirpated. Reintroduction of captive-reared whooping cranes be gan in 1993 when the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, in c ooperation with several government and private agencies, released birds on the Ki ssimmee Prairie in central Florid a with the goal of establishing a resident, non-migratory flock (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994). Captive-reared whooping cranes released in to Florida for the resident reintroduction project experienced unusually high mortality and morbidity during the 1997/98 and 2001/02 release seasons. Exposure to in fectious bursal disease virus (IBDV) was documented, and may have been the precipitating factor for these mo rtality events (Spalding et al. 2006). The purpose of this study is to provide baseline data on the potential for exposur e of whooping cranes to

PAGE 12

12 IBDV from other wildlife reservoirs, so that e ffective protocols can be created and measures taken to ensure that this virus doe s not impact the recovery of the e ndangered whooping crane. Mortality Events In 1997/98, 14 of 22 captive-reared whooping cran es died within 6 months of their release. Another mortality ev ent occurred during the 2001/02 rele ase season. Seventy percent of birds released were affected. Of the 27 birds re leased 14 died, 5 others became sick and two of these had to be taken into permanent captivity. Bi rds from 4 different cap tive-rearing facilities in the United States and Canada were involved (Spaldi ng et al 2006). A number of potential causes were considered (food, water, envi ronmental toxins, herbicides, West Nile virus, coccidiosis, St. Louis and eastern equine encephali tis) and were ruled out (M. G. Spalding, University of Florida, unpublished data). Finally, because there was evidence of immunosuppression and the pattern of illness seemed to be restricted to young of the year, blood samples were tested for exposure to IBDV. The pattern of birds testing positive matched well with those that were sick or died, suggesting that IBDV may have been the factor precipitating the mort ality events (Spalding et al. 2006). As a result, an epidemiological study was initiated. This included testing archived blood samples from whooping cranes for exposure to IB DV, the initiation of a monitoring program for all captive-reared whooping cran es released into Florida and their offspring, and testing of whooping cranes in the captive flock. Results showed that some birds had been exposed to IBDV in the captive setting (Hart up and Sellers 2006). However, many more were exposed after their release into Florid a and prevalence of exposure increased w ith age or length of time a bird was in the wild (Spalding et al. 2006). Infectious bursal disease poses a significan t threat to the successf ul recovery of the endangered whooping crane, and cap tive-reared whooping cranes rel eased in Florida are being

PAGE 13

13 exposed to the virus post-release. Very little is known about the incidence of IBDV outside of poultry operations, especially in No rth America. Therefore prevalence of the virus in wild birds, the etiology of the virus, and its transmission mechanism are unknown. The goals of this study are to investigate whether wild exposure is pos sible, how wild exposure may occur, and the origin of the virus in wild birds of Florida. Epidemiology of Infectious Bursal Disease Infectious bursal disease is an acute, highl y contagious, viral dis ease that is common on poultry farms. The pathogenicity, resistance to di sinfectants, and persiste nce in the environment make it one of the most important viruses of domestic poultry throughout the world (Lukert and Saif 2003). Infected chickens shed the virus in their feces, and can transmit the virus for at least 14 days (Ahad 2002). Water, feed, and droppings taken from infected pens in poultry houses were found to be infectious for 52 days (Benton et al. 1967). There are two forms of this disease, clinical and subclinical. For ch ickens, the period of greatest susceptibility to clinical disease is betw een 3 and 6 weeks of age. The incubation period is very short, and clinical signs are seen within 2 days of exposure. Symptoms such as loss of appetite, dehydration, and diarrhea rapidly appear and the mort ality rate can be as high as 30% (Lukert and Saif 2003). In chickens infected before 3 weeks of age, a severe, prolonged immunosuppression occurs (Lukert and Saif 2003). The suppression of their immune system is similar to the effect of HIV on humans, leaving the birds vulnerable to a variety of ailments that normally would not be life threatening (Allan et al 1972). In this weakened state, the birds are also more susceptible to predation. There are two serotypes of IBDV. Type 1 occurs in all major poultry producing areas worldwide, and can cause acute mortality/immunos uppression in chickens. Type 2 is widespread in poultry flocks in the United States. It is found in both chickens and turkeys, but is non-

PAGE 14

14 pathogenic to these species (Lukert and Saif 2003). It is Type 2 that appears to have been involved in the whooping crane mortality event of 2001/02 (Spalding et al. 2006). Anecdotal evidence suggests IBDV may be pa thogenic to other avian species, but no study has directly linked exposure to clinical illness in any sp ecies other than chickens. Evidence of exposure to IBDV (serotype not identified) was found in Adelie penguin ( Pgyoscelis adeliae ) chicks following a mortality event where an infectious agent was suspected to be the cause. Clinical disease was not apparent at that time, but authors suggested that further investigation was warranted (Gardner et al. 1997). P opulations of common eider ( Somateria mollissima ) in the Baltic Sea have declined significan tly in some areas and juvenile mortality was reported to be the primary cause for this de cline (Hollmen et al. 2000). Although authors reported no evidence of illness, exposure to IBDV serotype 1 was confirmed and exposure prevalence was highest for eiders nesting in areas where duckling survival was low (Hollmen et al. 2000). In addition, followi ng a mortality event of Afri can black-footed penguins ( Spheniscus demersus ) and macaroni penguins ( Eudyptes chrysolophus ) in a zoo in the United Kingdom, Jackwood et al. (2005) were able to isolate IBDV serotype 2 from birds involved. The role of this virus in the mortality ev ent was unknown, and authors suggested that further study should be conducted to determine pathogenicity of IBDV in these species. Impact of Disease on Population Recovery Interactions between disease and population density play an important role in regulating animal populations, generally wit hout threat of elimin ating the population completely (Lafferty and Gerber 2002). This is espe cially true for large populations that occupy large geographic areas (Woodroffe 1999). As a popula tion expands, animals are forced to live in closer proximity to one another and share resources with an increas ing number of conspecifics. In some situations these circumstances lead to an increase in st ress and a decrease in general condition, leaving

PAGE 15

15 individuals more susceptible to disease while br inging them closer to animals from which they may contract it (Smith 2001). A decline in popula tion density is often the result. At lower densities transmission of disease is usually reduced and diseases are spread more slowly, if at all (Lafferty and Gerber 2002). The diseases role in population regula tion then becomes negligible. The impact of disease on small populations can be very different, pos ing a serious threat to the persistence of such populat ions. If hosts are killed more quickly than they can breed, population growth rates decline (Woodruff 1999) This perpetuates the small populations vulnerability to extinction by stochastic ev ents. One example comes from the long-term monitoring of bighorn sheep ( Ovis canadensis ). Berger (1990) found that small populations of 50 animals or less were more prone to extin ction than populations numbering 100 animals or more. This is a concern for the Florida re sident population of w hooping cranes which now number approximately 60 indi viduals (Folk et al. 2006). The threat of extinction caused by disease is also greater in small populations because they are more likely to have experienced inbreed ing, and limited genetic diversity can lead to a decrease in disease resistance (G lenn et al. 1999). These populat ions could therefore experience greater mortality than a genetical ly diverse population, and disease has proven to be an issue in some species involved in reintroduc tion programs when there is a d ecline or reduc tion of genetic diversity in captive-br ed animals (Glenn et al. 1999) In 1982 and 1983, 18 cheetahs ( Acinonyx jubatus ) in a captive breeding faci lity died from feline infectious pe ritonitis. It is unusual for this disease to cause such high mort ality. OBrien et al (1985) suggested that mortality was so significant because the cheetahs lacked an effectiv e immune response as a result of inbreeding. This concern also applies to whooping cranes because the population experienced a severe genetic bottleneck in the early 1940 s when the migratory flock d eclined to just 15 or 16 birds

PAGE 16

16 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 199 4). It is estimated that these remaining birds were highly interrelated, having an effective population size of only 1.2 birds (Jones et al. 2002). Because this was the founder population, al l whooping cranes that exist today suffer reduced genetic diversity (Glenn et al. 1999). In the conservation of small, already compromised populations such as the whooping crane, immunocompromising diseases such as IBDV could be especially problematic (Thorne and Williams 1988, Lafferty and Gerber 2002). On ce infected with such a disease, host organisms become susceptible to secondary infection by common but normally benign disease organisms (Hollmen et al. 2000). The potential for transmission of IBDV betw een domestic poultry and wild birds is an additional concern for the resident flock of whooping cranes in Florida as di sease can be an issue in the recovery of species when the potentia l for transmission between domestic animals and endangered species exists. The African wild dog ( Lycaon pictus ) population has declined considerably in recent decades, and in 2002 wa s estimated at less than 5,500 individuals. Domestic canine diseases such as rabies and canine distemper, possibly transmitted by dogs from local villages, were some of the suggested causes of this decline (van de Bildt et al. 2002). According to Thorne and Williams (1988) canine distemper was also common in domestic dogs in Wyoming. In 1985, a drastic decline was not ed in the last known wild population of blackfooted ferrets ( Mustela nigripes ). To investigate the cause of th e decline, ferrets were captured from widely separated locations. The fact that al l died in captivity of canine distemper, indicated that the disease was widespread. The 18 known su rvivors of the disease outbreak were captured and placed in a captive breeding program. The free-ranging colony was essentially extirpated.

PAGE 17

17 Objectives I could find no published study confirming that wild birds in the United States have become exposed to IBDV. However, results fr om the epidemiological study by Spalding et al. (2006) indicated that some captiv e-reared whooping cranes had b een exposed to IBDV following their release into Florid a. Therefore, the first objective wa s to test the hypothesis that wild exposure to IBDV is possible without direct cont act with potentially in fected captive-reared whooping cranes. To investigate how wild exposure may occur I tested the hypothesis that contact with wild birds is a potential exposure mechanism. Fo r contact with wild birds to be a valid exposure mechanism, wild birds that whooping cranes shar e habitat with post-release must be positive for IBDV exposure. Therefore, the second objective was to determine if such species had been exposed to the virus and to assess the pr evalence of exposure among those species. The original source of IBDV in wild bi rd of Florida is unknown. There are many possibilities related to domestic poultry operations such as : transmission by people carrying the virus on contaminated footwear, inappropriate disposal of pou ltry products, and use of poultry litter as fertilizer in the agricu ltural industry. Another option is that captive-reared cranes were exposed to the virus in captivity and they introduced the virus to wild birds of Florida postrelease. However, this possibili ty might be eliminated if it coul d be shown that wild birds in Florida had been exposed to the virus prior to the release of captive-reared cranes. Therefore, the third objective was to test the hypo thesis that wild sandhill cranes ( Grus Canadensis ) in Florida were exposed to the virus prior to the release of captive-reared cr anes, or in areas where contact with captive-reared cranes was highly unlikely.

PAGE 18

18 CHAPTER 2 SENTIENEL CHICKENS Introduction Infectious bursal disease virus (IBDV) is a common poultry virus. It is well documented that birds in domestic operati ons are being exposed worldwide, and transmission mechanisms are fairly well understood in this setting (Lukert and Saif 2003). Although there are no published studies confirming that wild expos ure to IBDV has occurred in No rth America, or demonstrating that transmission mechanisms exist, Spalding et al. (2006) found that captive-reared whooping cranes ( Grus americana ) had been exposed to IBDV following their release into Florida. To test the hypothesis that wild exposure in Florida is possible without direct contact with potentially infected whooping cranes, sentinel chickens confirmed to be free of disease were monitored for exposure to IBDV. Materials and Methods Six-week-old specific pathogen free (SPF) leghorn chickens were purchased from Charles River Laboratories, Inc. (251 Balla rdvale Street Wilmington, MA 01887-1000). Blood samples were collected upon arrival to confirm th e sentinel chickens had not previously been exposed to IBDV. Chickens were housed in 32x10x12 Tomahawk Raccoon/Feral Cat Live Traps (PO Box 323, Tomahawk, WI, 54487) and provi ded with fresh food and water daily. Lake County Release Site The first cohort of captive-reared whooping cranes for the 2003/04 release season arrived at the release site on December 8, 2003. The bird s were brailed and placed in a portable prerelease pen. Brails were removed on December 2 1, 2003 and the birds were free to leave the pen (Figure 2-1). Three of these birds were positiv e for exposure to IBDV serotype 2 upon arrival at the release site. No birds seroconverted while in the pen. The second cohort arrived on

PAGE 19

19 February 5, 2004 and brails were removed on Fe bruary 18, 2004 (Figure 2-1). None of these cranes were positive for exposure to IBDV serot ype 2 upon arrival. One bird seroconverted while in the pen (M. G. Spalding, Univers ity of Florida, unpublished data). Eight SPF chickens were placed in cages wh en the first cohort arrived for release (December 8, 2003) and remained on the site thr ough April 2004 (Figure 2-1). To increase the chance for viral exposure for another investigatio n, the chickens were separated into two groups of four and placed 1.07 km apart. One group of chickens was placed 1.47 km from the release site, along the edge of a small pine forest (Figur e 2-2). This group of chickens was exposed to crane feces collected from the vicinity of the release pen. The second group of chickens was placed 0.51 km from the release s ite, along the edge of an oak hammock (Figure 2-2). This group was not exposed to crane feces. To mi nimize cross contamination when checking the sentinel chickens the protocol was to always visit the non-exposure group first. Feces were collected from areas surrounding th e feeders used by cranes after leaving the release pen. All were used by the current years release birds, past years release birds, and a few wild sandhill cranes. For each collection attempt, I monitored the feeder being used by the most current years captive-reared whooping cranes. I watched the birds, noting when and where one defecated. Feces were collected when cranes le ft the feeder area. When there were multiple feces in the vicinity, all were co llected in an attempt to ensure collection of the target feces. Feces were placed in the cages of the exposure gr oup when the chickens had been on the site for 43 days, 50 days, and 56 days (Figure 2-1). No feces were collected af ter the arrival of the second cohort of captive-rear ed whooping cranes. To determine whether the likelihood of becoming exposed to IBDV was independent of exposure to crane feces, a like lihood ratio (G) test for independence was employed using the

PAGE 20

20 statistical software JMP 7 (SAS Institute 2007). The test was 2tailed and considered significant at P 0.05. Polk County Release Site Five captive-reared whooping cranes arrive d for release on December 8, 2004 and were debrailed on December 22, 2004 (Figure 2-3). None of the captive-reared cranes were positive for IBDV exposure upon arrival. One bird sero converted while in the pen (M. G. Spalding, University of Florida, unpublished data). Eight SPF chickens were placed in cages on December 11, 2004 and remained on the release site through May 2005 (Figur e 2-3). All 8 chickens were placed in the same area and none were exposed to crane feces. The cages were placed in a small oak hammock surrounded by improved pasture. Blood Collection and Analysis Blood collection and analysis methods were th e same for SPF chickens on both release sites. A blood sample was collected from each chicken approximately every 2 weeks. One to 2 mL of blood was collected from the medial metatarsal vein (Fi gure 2-4). A 27-gauge needle was used on young chickens, and a 25-gauge needle was used when they were full grown. After collection, blood was transferred in to a lithium heparinized vacuta iner. All samples were kept cold until they were spun down and the serum co llected. The serum was frozen until it was sent to the Poultry Diagnostic & Research Center (Col lege of Veterinary Medicine, University of Georgia, 953 College Station Roa d, Athens, GA 30602) for evaluation. All serum samples were tested for IBDV serot ype 2 antibodies. Infectious bursal disease serotype 2 virus neutralizations, using the beta procedure (constant virus/diluted serum), were performed in primary chicken embryo fibroblast (CEF) cultures prepared from 9-11 day old SPF

PAGE 21

21 chicken embryos. Sera were heat inactivated at 56 C for 45 minutes, followed by centrifugation at 1200 x g for 10 minutes. Fifty microliters of serum was added to the first well of each row (rows A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H) in a tissu e culture-treated 96 well plate. Serotype 2 IBDV antigen was diluted to contain 100-5 00 Tissue Culture Infectious Dose50/50 l. Subsequently, 50 L of diluted antigen was added to all wells (columns 1-11), except wells in column 12 (this served as a cell control) Serial dilutions were prepared by mixing the serum and antigen in column 1 and transferring 50 L to column 2. Pipette tips were changed and contents in column 2 were mixed and 50 L was transferred to column 3. This was repeated through column 10 where contents were mixed and 50 L were discarded. Column 11 contained antigen only and was the virus control. Positi ve serotype 2 IBDV sera and negative sera were included in assay as controls One hundred and ninety L of CEFs were added to all wells. Cells were incubated at 37 C for 5 days, cell culture media d ecanted, cells fixed with methanol for 1 minute and stained with crysta l violet for 1 minute. Virus ne utralizing titer was recorded as the reciprocal dilution of the last well exhibiting no cytopathic effect. It is unknown what titer level indicates true e xposure to IBDV. Previous studies of wild birds have considered titer leve ls ranging from 1:16 to 1:80 as evidence of exposure (Wilcox et al. 1983, Gardner et al. 1997, Ogawa et al. 1998, Hollm en et al. 2000). For the purposes of this study I assumed a titer level of 1:8 or less indicated no exposure to the virus. Birds with a titer level of 1:16 were considered possibly exposed. A titer level of 1:32 or greater was assumed to be indicative of exposure. Bursal Fluid Aspiration Seventeen bursal fluid samples were colle cted from SPF chickens on the Polk County release site in an attempt to isolate the IBDV se rotype 2. The bursa of fabricius is a sac-like extension of the hindgut, located on the dorsal side of the cloaca. The chicken was placed on its

PAGE 22

22 back, and a Kendall Monoject 16G x 1-1/2 aluminum hub blunt needle (tyco/Healthcare, Two Ludlow Park Dr., Chicopee, MA, 01022) was inserted into the vaginal open ing of the vent, at a slightly downward angle. The needle was in serted until it dropped down into the bursa of fabricius (Figure 2-5). Fluid was aspirated and th en injected into a ster ile solution of phosphate buffer saline. The solution was frozen and sent to the lab for evaluation. Results Lake County: December 2003 through April 2004 Seroprevalence did not differ significantly between groups exposed and not exposed to crane feces (P = 0.148). Of the 4 chickens in the non-exposure group, three seroconverted and one was possibly exposed. Of the three chicke ns with titer levels high enough to indicate exposure, two had a titer level of 1:64 and one had a titer level of 1:256 indicating recent exposure. Two of these chickens seroconverted af ter being on the release site for 101 days. One chicken seroconverted after being on the release site fo r 133 days (Figure2-1). Of the four chickens in the fecal exposu re group, one became exposed to IBDV serotype 2, two were possibly exposed, and one was not ex posed. The chicken with a titer level high enough to indicate viral exposure seroconverted after being on the release site for 101 days (Figure 2-1). The chicken that did not seroconver t is the bird that spent the least amount of time on the release site. It was found dead in its cage after having been on the release site for 79 days (Figure 2-1). Necropsy did not reveal cause of de ath, and no virus was isolated from its tissues. Polk County: December 2004 through May 2005 Eight sentinel chickens were placed on the release site, but a raccoon killed one within the first 2 weeks. Data were analyzed on th e 7 remaining chickens. Two chickens became exposed to the virus, one was possibly exposed, a nd four were not exposed. Of the two chickens

PAGE 23

23 that became exposed, one seroconv erted after being on the releas e site for 29 days, the other seroconverted after 66 days (Figure 2-1). On e had a titer level of 1:256, indicating recent exposure. The IBDV serotype 2 was not isolated from any bursal fluid samples. Comparison of titer level from blood collected on the same day as bursal fluid revealed that only one of the seventeen samples was collected from a bird having a titer level high enough to indicate exposure. Discussion Some sentinel chickens on both release sites seroconverted to IBDV serotype 2, supporting the hypothesis that wild transmission of IBDV in Florida is po ssible. The hypothesis is strengthened by the failure of exposure to pote ntially infected feces fr om whooping cranes to increase the seroconversion rate of the chickens. It is possible, but unlikely, that the chickens became infected directly from the captive-reared whooping cranes. Cranes may have visited the chicken cages, although this was never observed. The virus may have been carried by people when feeding or handling the chickens, although pr otocol dictated that chickens were visited before entering the release area to minimize this possibility. The hypothesis is further supported by the fact that chickens on the Polk County release site became exposed to IBDV, yet none of the captive-reared whooping cr anes released were positive for IBDV serotype 2 antibodies upon arrival at the release site. However, one of the captive-reared whooping cranes se roconverted while in the pen. Seroconversion could be the result of wild exposure or it is possible that the crane was ex posed in captivity, but did not seroconvert until after it was put in the pen. The finding that likelihood of exposure was not significantly affect ed by contact with potentially infected feces must be interpreted wi th caution for 2 reasons. First, the sample size

PAGE 24

24 was small (n = 8). Second, it is possible that I did not collect any infected feces. Previous research indicates that chickens shed the virus in feces for 14 days (Ahad 2002). It is unknown if or how long whooping cranes may shed the virus in feces, but it is possible that exposed cranes were not shedding the virus at time of collection. Regardless of whether or not chickens in the fecal exposure group were exposed to infected crane feces, some chickens in the non -exposure group did seroconvert. This suggests that the virus is present in the environment and available to infect susceptible hosts. Therefore, further research into wild exposure mechanisms w ith insects acting as the vector is warranted. A strain of IBDV (serotype not identified) was isolated from mosquitoes ( Aedes vexans ) trapped in southwestern Ontario in 1976 (Howie and Thor sen 1981). This species is found throughout the United States and utilizes a wide range of ha bitat types (OMalley 1990 ). Whooping cranes are known to have contracted other mosquito born vi ruses such as Eastern Equine Encephalitis and West Nile virus (M. G. Spalding, University of Florida, unpublished data). Dung beetles may be another insect of interest as whooping cranes in Florida have b ecome infected with a nematode that utilizes dung beetles as an intermed iate host (Varela et al. 2001). Another potential exposure mechanism is the use of poultry litter containing feces as fertilizer, a practice used regularly on the prope rty adjoining the Lake County release site. Although the virus can be transmitted in chickens through contact with infected feces, research indicates that IBDV does not surv ive the Maryland Method of d ead bird composting, otherwise known as two stage composting (Murphy 1990). Th erefore the material itself if properly composted is probably not the source of infection. But the virus has been isolated from adult lesser mealworms ( Alphitobius diaperinus Panzer ) which commonly inhabit poultry houses, living in poultry droppings and litter (McAllister et al. 1995, Dunford and Kaufman 2006).

PAGE 25

25 Mealworms could be transferred from the poultry house to the wild if litter infested with mealworms is spread on the fields, and presence of the lesser mealworm has been confirmed in numerous counties throughout Florida (Dunford and Kaufman 2006).

PAGE 26

26 Dec 8, 2003 : Whooping Crane Cohort 1 placed in pen on the release site. Three cranes were positive for IBDV exposure upon arrival. Dec 8, 2003 : Sentinel chickens placed in cages on the release site Dec 21, 2003 : Whooping Crane Cohort 1 released from pen. No cranes became exposed to IBDV while in the pen. Jan 20, 2004 : Sentinel chickens in Exposure Group exposed to crane feces Jan 27, 2004 : Sentinel chickens in Exposure Group exposed to crane feces Feb 2, 2004 : Sentinel chickens in Exposure Group exposed to crane feces Feb 5, 2004 : Whooping Crane Cohort 2 placed in pen on the release site. None of these cranes were positive for IBDV exposure upon arrival. Feb 18, 2004 : Whooping Crane Cohort 2 released from pen. One crane seroconverted while in the pen. Feb 27, 2004 : Mortality of sentinel chicken in Fecal Exposure Group March 19, 2004 : Seroconversion of 1 sentinel chicken in Fecal Exposure Group and 2 chickens in Non-exposure Group April 20, 2004 : Seroconversion of 1 sentinel chicken in Non-exposure Group April 23, 2004 : Sentinel chickens removed from release site Figure 2-1. Timeline for Lake County release site.

PAGE 27

27 Figure 2-2. Chicken trap locations on Lake County release site. Dec 8, 2004 : Whooping cranes placed in pen on release site. No cranes were positive for IBDV exposure upon arrival. Dec 11, 2004 : Sentinel chickens placed in cages on the release site Dec 22, 2004 : Whooping cranes released from pen. One crane seroconverted while in the pen. Jan 9, 2005 : Seroconversion of 1 sentinel chicken Feb 15, 2005 : Seroconversion of 1 sentinal chicken May 3, 2005 : Sentinel chickens removed from release site Figure 2-3. Timeline for Polk County release site.

PAGE 28

28 Figure 2-4. Collecting blood from a chic ken via the medial metatarsal vein.

PAGE 29

29 Figure 2-5. Aspirating bu rsal fluid from the bursa of fabricius.

PAGE 30

30 CHAPTER 3 INFECTIOUS BURSAL DISEASE IN WILD BIRDS OF FLORIDA Introduction Infectious bursal disease virus has been well studied in commercial poultry operations, but very little is known about the prevalence or exposure mechanisms in wild birds (Lukert and Saif 2003). Although I could find no published litera ture on the incidence of IBDV in wild birds of North America, studies done in Antarctica, Australia, Crozet Archipelago in the Indian Ocean, Finland, Ireland, Japan, Nigeria, an d Spain indicate that wild bi rds worldwide are being exposed to the virus (Nawathe et al. 1978, Wilcox et al. 1983, Gardner et al. 1997, Ogawa et al. 1998, Hollmen et al. 2000, Campbell 2001, Hofle et al. 2001, Gauthier-Clerc et al. 2002). Anecdotal evidence from these studies suggests that exposure to IBDV in wild birds of North America may be the result of spill-over, the transmission of contagious agents from reservoir animal populations (often domesticated species) to wildli fe occupying the same area (Daszak and Cunningham 2000). Potential transmission mechan isms are the use of poultry farms, human activity, disposal of poultry produc ts, the use of poultry litter as fertilizer, and contact with infected wild birds. Use of Poultry Farms The farm environment provides valuable hab itat for wildlife, and wild birds in North America may become exposed to IBDV through their use of poultry farms. This includes both large commercial operations where wild birds may use drainage ponds and small farms with free-range poultry where direct contact with wild birds is possible. At the poultry farm of the National Veterinary Research In stitute in Nigeria, evidence of exposure to IBDV (serotype not identified) was found in six of 50 wild birds capt ured on the farm. Chic kens on the poultry farm housed in the commercial type setting and those kept as free ranging back-yard birds had been

PAGE 31

31 exposed as well (serotype not identified). The authors did not investigate the source of exposure in these wild birds, but suggested that it could have been th e domestic poultry (Nawathe et al. 1978). When blood samples were collected from 11 species of wild water birds in Western Australia, evidence of exposure to IBDV (ser otype not identified) was found in 7 species (Wilcox et al. 1983). Antibodies to the virus we re most commonly dete cted in black ducks ( Anas superciliosa ) from the Perth area. The authors re ported that farm ponds used to collect drainage from poultry sheds ar e common on commercial poultry fa rms in Perth, and that black ducks had been observed using these fresh water ponds. Sera from king penguins ( Aptenodytes patagonicus ) on Possession Island of the Crozet Archipelago in the South Indian Ocean were exam ined for antibodies to IBDV serotypes 1 and 2. Chicks and adults had been exposed to both sero types of the virus. For many years there was a poultry yard with domestic chickens and ducks in the scientific st ation on Possession Island. Although the authors did not know whether any of the domestic poultry had been exposed to IBDV, these domestic birds did have daily contact with wild birds (Gauthie r-Cleric et al. 2002). Human Activity and Disposal of Poultry Products It has also been suggested that human activ ity and disposal of poultry products could be sources of exposure for wild bird s. Gauthier-Cleric et al. (2002) reported that since the 1960s the beach of the king penguin colony where birds were found to have been exposed to IBDV, was the main landing point for people, equipment, and food destined for the research station. Although the authors did not investigate potenti al exposure mechanisms, the virus may have been introduced by human activity on the island or by sewage fr om the poultry yard that was discharged untreated into a field.

PAGE 32

32 Disposal of poultry products is suspected as the source of exposure in common eiders ( Somateria mollissima ) and herring gulls ( Larus argentatus ) in two mixed species breeding colonies along the Finnish coast. The col ony that was close to human development had significantly greater prev alence of exposure to IBDV serotype 1. Herring gulls from this colony were observed foraging at a nearby landfill. The authors proposed that gulls foraging at the landfill may have come in contact with the vi rus through waste from poultry farms, and then transmitted the virus when they returned to feed their young (Hollmen et al. 2000). Human activity is suspected in exposure of two species of Antarctic penguins ( Aptenodytes forsteri and Pygoscelis adeliae ) to IBDV (serotype not id entified) as evidence of exposure was found in colonies n ear centers of human activity, but none of the samples collected from penguins in a remote and rarely visited site had antibodies to the vi rus. Authors suggested that the virus may be spread by people on their footwear, clothing, e quipment, or vehicles as they move around Antarctica. They also proposed th at inappropriate disposal of imported poultry products may have been involved as wild birds could have become exposed when scavenging on waste and then transmitted the virus to othe r birds in the area (G ardner et al. 1997). Use of Poultry Litter as Fertilizer Poultry litter containing feces is used as fert ilizer in the agricultural industry, and this practice may be involved in transmission of IBDV from domestic operations to the wild. The virus can be transmitted in chickens through c ontact with infected feces, but IBDV does not survive the Maryland Method of dead bird composting, otherwise known as two stage composting (Murphy 1990). Therefore, the material itself if properly co mposted is probably not the source of infection. But lesser mealworms ( Alphitobius diaperinus Panzer ) commonly inhabit poultry houses where they live in poultr y droppings and litter, and the IBDV (serotype

PAGE 33

33 not identified) has been isolat ed from adult lesser mealworm s up to 14 days after exposure (McAllister et al. 1995, Dunford a nd Kaufman 2006). Mealworms could be transferred from the poultry house to the wild if litte r and feces infested with mealworms is spread on fields as fertilizer (Dunford and Kaufman 2006). Presence of the lesser mealworm has been confirmed in Alachua, Broward, Charlotte, Clay, Dade, Hillsbo rough, Indian River, Manatee, Marion, Orange, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk, Putnam, and Volusia countie s and probably occurs throughout the state of Florida (Dunford and Kaufman 2006). Contact with Wild Birds Wild birds for whom the virus is not pat hogenic may act as reservoirs of the virus (Nawathe et al. 1978, Wilcox et al. 1983). To address this question, van den Berg et al. (2001) performed experimental infections of 3 week old commercial pheasants ( Phasianus colchicus ), grey partridges ( Perdix perdix ), Japanese quail ( Coturnix coturnix japonica ), and guinea fowl ( Numida meleagris ) using the very virulent strain of IBDV (serotype 1). These species were chosen because they are closely related evolutionarily to domestic fowl, and because they are commonly released fo r hunting or ornamental purposes. None of these species exhibited clinical signs of illness. Guinea fowl were found to be fully refractory to infection. Some pheasants and partridges seroconverte d, but none excreted the virus. Quail were susceptible to infection and shed the virus in feces for up to 7 days. Therefore, Japanese quail have the potential to act as a reservoir of the very vi rulent strain serotype 1 virus. However, results from this study do not suppor t the findings of Weis man and Hitchner (1978) who found Coturnix quail (species not specif ied) to be refractory to IBDV, although they used the Classical Strain serot ype 1 virus. Therefore Coturnix quail appear capable of transmitting and being a reservoir of at leas t one strain of IBDV.

PAGE 34

34 Van den Berg et al. (2001) concluded that pe rsistence of IBDV in wild bird populations is unlikely to occur and that the source of inf ection has to be found in poultry farms or the environment. Captive-reared whooping cranes rel eased in Florida spend the majority of their time on farms and ranches. These range from large ranches that specialize in cattle and crops, to smaller farms where owners keep back-yard chickens. In addition, the use of litter from poultry operations as fertilizer is common on some farms. Theref ore it is possible that whooping crane exposure may be a result of their use of the farm environment, or exposure to wild birds that act as reservoirs of the virus. For contact with wild birds to be a potential exposure mechanism for whooping cranes, it first needs to be shown that wild birds utilizing the same habitat ha ve been exposed to the virus. I tested the hypothesis that wild turkeys ( Meleagris gallopavo ), Florida sandhill cranes ( Grus canadensis pratensis ), and Florida bobwhite quail ( Colinus virginianus floridana ) have been exposed to IBDV. These 3 species were chos en based on likelihood of interaction (based on personal observations made during the 4 year s I monitored whooping cranes), and previous research regarding susceptibility to IBDV in closely related domestic species I found no previous research on susceptibility of sandhill cr anes to IBDV. They were included because they are closely relate d to whooping cranes (both in genus Grus ), and are the species I observed captive-re ared whooping cranes inte racting with most regul arly after release. Wild turkeys were chosen because previous research indicates that domestic turkeys can be carriers of IBDV. When domestic turkeys are exposed to IBDV they respond serologically and are capable of transmitting the virus, but do not develop clinical disease (Giambrone et al. 1978, Weisman and Hitchner 1978, Jackwood et al. 1981, Barn es et al. 1982). If wild turkeys are also carriers, then they are likely candidates to be na tural reservoirs of the virus. In addition, IBDV

PAGE 35

35 serotype 2 has been detected in domestic turk eys in the United States (Jackwood et al. 1982, Chin et al. 1984). Although I observed minima l interaction between w ild turkeys and whooping cranes, wild turkeys were observed foraging in the same pastures used by whooping cranes. Florida bobwhite quail also share habita t with whooping cranes Although I never observed direct interaction between these two species, both were observed using edge habitat in agricultural areas. No studies have been published on prevalence of IBDV in this species of quail. However, previous research indicates that Coturnix quail are capable of transmitting at least 1 strain of the virus, serotype 1 (van den Berg 2001). Although Coturnix quail are in a different family (Old World quail of the family Phasianidae) than bobw hite quail (New World Quail of the Family Odontophoridae), it is possible that they are capable of transmitting the virus as well. In addition, there is another mode of transmission of the virus from a domestic source into the wild in Florida as pen-raised bobwhite quail are of ten released for dog training and hunting (Wiley 2005). Materials and Methods Wild Turkey To determine if populations of wild tu rkey had been exposed to IBDV, 596 blood samples were collected from wild turkeys at 24 locations in 21 c ounties throughout Florida (DeSoto, Gadsden, Glades, Hernando, Highl ands, Holmes, Jefferson, Lake, Leon, Levy, Wakulla, Madison, Martin, Orange, Osceola, Palm Beach, Pasco, Polk, Putnam, Sumter, Wakulla) and 3 adjoining plantations in Thomas and Grady counties in southern Georgia (Figure 3-1). Two methods were used to collect these samples. During the 2004, 2005, and 2006 spring turkey-hunting seasons, 434 blood samples we re collected from hunter-harvested wild turkeys (Table 3-1). When hunters brought a bi rd to the check station, it was hung upside down

PAGE 36

36 by the feet. An incision, 2.5.1 cm in length, was made in the right side of the neck. This would cut the jugular vein, releasing blood. A lit hium heparinized vacutainer was held beneath the incision and as much blood as possible was collected. From December 2003 through January 2007, 162 blood samples were collected from live birds captured with rocket nets (Table 3-2). Between 1 and 2 mL of blood was collected from the medial metatarsal vein using a 25-gauge needle. After collection, blood was transferre d into a lithium hepari nized vacutainer. All blood samples were kept cold until they were spun down and the serum collected. The serum was frozen until it was sent to the Poultr y Diagnostic & Research Center (College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Georgia, 953 College St ation Road, Athens, GA 30602) for evaluation. All serum samples were tested fo r IBDV serotype 2 antibodies using the beta procedure (constant virus/diluted se rum) described in Chapter 2. It is unknown what titer level indicates true e xposure to IBDV. Previous studies of wild birds have considered titer leve ls ranging from 1:16 to 1:80 as evidence of exposure (Wilcox et al. 1983, Gardner et al. 1997, Ogawa et al. 1998, Hollmen et al. 2000, van den Berg 2001). For the purposes of this study I assume d a titer level of 1:16 or less was not indicative of exposure to the virus. Birds with a titer leve l of 1:32 or greater were considered exposed to the virus. The Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric ANOVA and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to determine if average titer level differed by locatio n and year respectively. Post-hoc comparisons were performed using Wilcoxon rank sum tests. To determine if likelihood of exposure (# birds with titer level 1:32) was independent of location and year, a likelihood ratio (G) test for independence was used. Post-hoc comparisons were performed us ing the likelihood ratio test as well. All tests were 2-tailed and considered significant at P 0.05. Analysis was performed using the statistical software JMP 7 (SAS Institute 2007).

PAGE 37

37 Florida Bobwhite Quail I hoped to obtain blood samples from harv ested Florida bobwhite quail in a manner similar to that of harvested wild turkeys. However, due to th e smaller size of bobwhite quail I was unable to get a sufficient serum sample by co llecting blood in a hepa rinized vacutainer post mortem, spinning it down, and separating the serum. Therefore, I conducted a pilot study to test the feasibility of collecting blood with filter paper strips. This method allows for the determination of antibody titer le vel with a much smaller amount of blood. First, I investigated whether enough blood could be collected from d ead quail to perform the analysis. Then I examined whether this method provided an accu rate measure of antibody titer level for IBDV serotype 2. To examine whether enough blood could be co llected from harvested Florida bobwhite quail to perform the analysis, 11 samples were co llected from birds harv ested in November of 2004 on Babcock-Webb WMA in Char lotte County. Collectors we re instructed to cut the jugular or brachial vein and saturate 100 diam eter Nebuto blood filter strips (Advantec MFS, Inc., 6691 Owens Dr., Pleasanton, CA, 94588) with as much blood as possible. The goal was to completely saturate the filter paper strip with bl ood. Then the filter paper strip was placed in a small plastic bottle with a desi ccant pack (Schleicher & Schuell BioScience, 10 Optical Ave., Keene, NH, 03431). Bottles with filt er paper strips and desiccant we re then sent to the lab for analysis. To test the accuracy of the antibody titer level resulting from samples collected with filter paper strips, serum and filter paper samples we re compared for 4 harvested turkeys and 12 live chickens. Blood was collected in a heparinized v acutainer. Then a filter paper strip was placed in the vial and saturated with blood. The re maining blood in the vial was spun down, and the serum separated. Each sample was analyzed for antibodies to IBDV serotype 2.

PAGE 38

38 Florida Sandhill Crane To determine if antibodies to IBDV serotype 2 were present in Florida sandhill cranes, 53 blood samples were collected in seven counties in central Florida: Hernando, Highlands, Lake, Orange, Osceola, Polk, and Sumter (Figure 3-2). Seven samples we re opportunistically collected from adult sandhill cranes. Four samples were obtained from dead or injured birds (3 from Osceola County and 1 from Orange County), 2 we re collected from nuisance birds (1 from Highlands County and 1 from Lake County), and 1 was acquired from an extremely tame bird that we were able to hand grab while capturi ng chicks at Moss Park in Orange County. Forty-six samples were collected from pre-fledgling sandhill cr ane chicks captured during the 2004, 2005, and 2006 breeding seasons (3 from Hernando County, 7 from Polk County, 2 from Sumter County, 30 from Osceola C ounty, and 4 from Orange County). Chicks ranged in age from approximately 25 to 65 days old. Capture teams of 3 to 5 wildlife biologi sts drove through known crane-breeding areas looking for families. Chicks selected for capture were at least 2 weeks of age, and no older than approximately 70 days so they could not fly. If the chicks could be cap tured safely, the team drove as close as possible to the family and ran out and captured the chicks by hand. Between 1 and 2 mL of blood we re collected from the medial metatarsal vein using a 25gauge needle. After collection blood was transf erred to a lithium hepa rinized vacutainer. Pictures were taken of the chicks head, wi ngs, and body so that age estimate could be confirmed. Chicks judged to be at least 50 days old were banded with color bands and/or aluminum FWS bands. Average handling time was 15 minutes, with a range from 6 to 29 minutes. Handling time for each chick varied base d on the number of chicks (single or twins), the ease with which I was able to get a blood sa mple, whether the chick(s) was old enough to be banded, and the capture teams le vel of experience. All blood samples collected from sandhill

PAGE 39

39 cranes were handled in the same manner, and eval uated using the same criteria as was used for wild turkeys. To determine if likelihood of e xposure (# birds wi th titer level 1:32) was independent of age, a likelihood ratio (G) test for independence was used. To determine if average titer level differed by age, a Wilcoxon rank sum test was use d. All tests were 2-tailed and considered significant at P 0.05. Analysis was performed using th e statistical software JMP 7 (SAS Institute 2007). Results Wild Turkey Overall, 6% of wild turkeys were exposed to IBDV serotype 2 (n = 596, mean = 1:7, SE = 1, median = 1:2, range = 1:0 to 1:256, Figure 3-3). Evidence of exposure was found in 8 counties in Florida (Hernando, Highlands, Lake, Osceola, Pasco, Polk, Putnam, Sumter) and 1 county in southern Ge orgia (Grady). Exposure prevalence (% samples with titer level 1:32) was 13% in 2003/04, 13% in 2004/05, 1% in 2005/06, and 0% in 2006/07 (Table 3-3). To investigate whether exposure prevalence and average tite r level differed significantly between years, I analyzed the five sites where 10 or more samples were collected in multiple years: Caravelle Ranch WMA-2004 vs. 2005, Half Moon WMA-2004 vs. 2006, Richloam WMA-2004 vs. 2006, Three Lakes WMA2005 vs. 2006, and Triple N Ranch WMA-2005 vs. 2006. Exposure prevalence differed significantly between years at al l sites, and average titer level differed significantly between years at all sites except Rich loam WMA (Table 3-4). Expos ure prevalence and titer level decreased over time at all sites except Ca ravelle Ranch WMA where there was an increase (Figure 3-4).

PAGE 40

40 Site specific exposure prevalence ranged from 0% to 30%, with 14 sites having no detectable evidence of exposure (Figure 3-1). Exposure prevalence (P=0. 0003) and average titer level (P<0.0001) differed significan tly between the sample sites. When performing individual comparisons I eliminated all sites where less than 10 samples were collected (Andrews WMA, Choctawhatchee River WMA, Tosohatchee WM A, and Upper Hillsborough WMA). The two sites with the highest exposure prevalence, Triple N Ranch WMA (30%) and Half Moon WMA (24%), did not differ significantly from each other but had significantly higher exposure prevalence than most other sites. Expos ure prevalence on Triple N Ranch WMA was significantly greater than exposure prevalence on all sites except Brooksville (8%) and Lake Panasoffkee WMA (8%). Exposure prevalence on Half Moon WMA was si gnificantly greater than exposure prevalence on all sites except South Georgia (5%), Brooksville, and Lake Panasoffkee WMA. When locations were combined into regions (a rea with a 10.5 mile radius) there was still a significant difference in exposure prevalen ce (P=0.0020) and average titer level (P<0.0001). The two regions with the highest exposure pr evalence were the one th at included Half Moon WMA and the one that included Triple N Ranch WMA. Exposure prevalence decreased to 19% on Half Moon WMA and 9% on Trip le N Ranch WMA. This caused the exposure prevalence of Half Moon WMA to become significantly higher th an that of Triple N Ranch WMA. When locations were combined the number of sites that Half Moon WMA wa s significantly greater than was reduced from 18 to 14, and the num ber of sites that Tr iple N Ranch WMA was significantly greater than was reduced from 19 to 10. The only site that Triple N Ranch WMA did not differ from alone but differed from when combined by region was the site that was combined with Half Moon WMA.

PAGE 41

41 Florida Bobwhite Quail None of the 11 filter paper samples collected on Babcock-Webb WMA were completely saturated with blood. All were analyzed, and each had a titer level of 1:0. However, of the 16 serum and filter paper samples compared, none result ed in matching titer le vels. For 6 birds the filter paper method overestimated antibody titer level, and for 10 birds it underestimated antibody titer level (Figure 3-7). Florida Sandhill Crane Overall, 7.5% of sandhill cranes were exposed to IBDV serotype 2 (n = 53, mean = 1:10, SE = 3, median = 1:4, range = 1:0 to 1:128,). Exposure prevalence (p=0. 0025) and average titer level (p=0.0155) were significantl y higher in adults than juven iles (Figure 3-6). Forty-three percent of adults were exposed to the virus (mean = 1:37, SE = 17, median = 1:16, range = 1:0 to 1:128). Two percent of juveniles were exposed to the virus (mean = 1:6, SE = 1, median = 1:3, range = 1:0 to 1:32). Discussion The hypothesis that wild turkeys and sandhill cranes in Florida have been exposed to IBDV serotype 2 was supported. Overall preval ence of exposure in wild turkeys remained constant during the 2003/04 and 2004/05 sampli ng years and then decreased thereafter, suggesting that viral occurrence may be cyclic in nature. This was supported by exposure prevalence decreasing significantly between years on all sites tested except Caravelle Ranch WMA where exposure prevalence increased. But this is the only site where both years used for comparison were during the sampling years ( 2003/04 and 2004/05) when overall exposure prevalence remained constant.

PAGE 42

42 I was unable to assess site specific varia tion in exposure prevalence of sandhill cranes due to small samples sizes, but prevalence of exposure in wild turkeys did vary among sites. However, this result must be interpreted with caution as 12 of the 14 si tes with no detectable evidence of exposure were sites sampled only in 2006, a year with extremely low exposure prevalence statewide. If viral occurrence is cyclic in nature then differences in site specific exposure may be the result of populations being in different phases of this cycle. Adult sandhill cranes captured for this st udy had significantly higher seroprevalence and average titer level than juvenile s. Although the adult sample size was small, this is consistent with findings of Spalding et al (2006) that exposure preval ence in whooping cranes increases with age. I was unable to assess the prevalence of exposure to IBDV serotype 2 in Florida bobwhite quail. Collecting a sufficient amount of blood for analysis from harvested birds proved difficult, and results from the filter paper comparat ive study demonstrated that the resulting titer levels were not accurate. Therefore the use of f ilter paper strips was not a reliable method to determine the antibody titer le vel for IBDV serotype 2 in Florida bobwhite quail. Hunters involved in the pilot study on Babcock-Webb WMA were cooperative and exhibited interest in being involved in the investigation of disease prevalence in Florida bobwhite quail. Large numbers of quail are harvested each year and presen t an opportunity to investigate disease issues in this species. Alternative me thods for collecting blood from harvested quail that could be used for disease studies should be explored. But it appears that future research investigati ng prevalence of IBDV would have to involve sacrificing quail specifically for the disease study or live trapping to collect blood samples.

PAGE 43

43 Figure 3-1. Blood collection sites for wild tu rkey samples collected from December 2003 through January 2007 (n=596). Exposure preval ence is listed beside each location. Locations with no percent listed had 0% exposure prevalence. Table 3-1. Number of blood samples collected from harvested wild turkeys during the 2004, 2005, and 2006 spring turkey seasons. Location County n Andrews WMA Levy 5 Avon Park Bombing Range Polk, Highlands 25 Private properties near Brooksville Hernando 13 Bull Creek WMA Osceola 34 Choctawhatchee River WMA and private property Holmes 8 Corbett WMA Palm Beach 17 Dupuis WMA Martin, Palm Beach 14 Fisheating Creek WMA Glades 16 Green Swamp WMA Polk, Sumter, Lake, Pasco 53 Half Moon WMA Sumter 41

PAGE 44

44 Table 3-1. Continued Location County n Hickory Hammock WMA and pr ivate property Highlands 11 Lake Panasoffkee WMA Sumter 13 Richloam WMA Hernando, Pasco, Sumter, Lake 44 Seminole Forest WMA Lake 16 Tall Timbers Research Station and private property Madison, Wakulla, Leon, Gadsen, Jefferson 11 Three Lakes WMA Osceola 74 Tosohatchee WMA Orange 8 Triple N Ranch WMA Osceola 23 Upper Hillsborough WMA Polk, Pasco 8 Table 3-2. Number of blood samples collected from wild turkeys using rocket nets from December 2003 through January 2007. Location County n Caravelle Ranch WMA Putnam 71 Ordway/Swisher Preserve Putnam 21 Lykes Brothers Ranch Glades 18 Sharps Ranch DeSoto 13 2-Rivers Ranch Hillsborough 13 Three Lakes WMA Osceola 7 Private Plantations, South Georgia Thomas, Grady 19

PAGE 45

45 Figure 3-2. Blood collection site s for Florida sandhill crane samples collected during 2004, 2005, and 2006 (n=53).

PAGE 46

46 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 0248163264128256Titer Level# of Samples Figure 3-3. Frequency of titer levels for all wild turkey samples collected from December 2003 through January 2007 (n=596). Table 3-3. Statistical results for yearly exposure prevalence in wild turkeys. Year n Mean SE MedianRange 2003/04 95 1:14 4 1:021:0 to 1:256 2004/05 128 1:12 2 1:041:0 to 1:128 2005/06 353 1:05 0.3 1:021:0 to 1:32 2006/07 20 1:00 0.1 1:001:0 to 1:2

PAGE 47

47 0%0%0% 0%0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Caravelle Ranch Half MoonRichloamThree LakesTriple N Ranch Year 1 Year 2 Figure 3-4. Wild turkey exposure prev alence (% birds with titer level 1:32) at five sample sites where 10 or more samples were co llected in multiple years. Table 3-4. P-values for differen ce in yearly exposure prevalence and average titer level in wild turkeys at sites where more than 10 samples were collected. Location n1 n2 Average Titer Level Exposure Prevalence Caravelle Ranch WMA 36 in 200435 in 2005P<0.0001P=0.0364 Half Moon WMA 15 in 200419 in 2005P=0.0002P=0.0011 Richloam WMA 16 in 200428 in 2006NSDP=0.0401 Three Lakes WMA 21 in 200553 in 2006P=0.0362P=0.0012 Triple N Ranch WMA 11 in 200512 in 2006P=0.0080P=0.0002

PAGE 48

48 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0248163264128256Titer LevelNumber of Samples Juveniles Adults Figure 3-5. Frequency of titer levels for Fl orida sandhill cranes captured in 2004, 2005, and 2006 (n=53).

PAGE 49

49 0000000000 00 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68t u rk e y turkey t u rkey tu rk ey chi c ken ch ick en chicken chi ck en c h ick en chi ck en ch ick en chi c ken ch ick en chi c ken ch ick en chickenTiter Level Filter Paper Strip Serum Figure 3-6. Titer level results for serum/filter paper comparisons.

PAGE 50

50 CHAPTER 4 ARCHIVED SAMPLES Introduction The original source of IBDV serotype 2 in wild bird of Florida is unknown. There are many possibilities related to domes tic poultry operations such as transmission of the virus by poultry workers on contaminated footwear, inappr opriate disposal of poultry products, and the use of litter containing feces as fertilizer in ag ricultural operations. But once it was determined that some cranes in captive-rearing facilities had been exposed to IBDV, there was concern that captive-reared cranes may be re sponsible for introducing the viru s to wild birds of Florida (Hartup and Sellers 2006). There have been inst ances when captive-bred animals exposed to a pathogen in the captive facility, exposed wild animals in and ar ound the release site to those pathogens (Spalding et al.1996, Snyder et al.1996, Woodford and Rossiter 1994). This possibility could be elim inated if it was determined that wild birds in Florida had been exposed to the virus prior to the release of captive-reared cranes, or in areas where contact with captivereared cranes was highly unlikely. Sandhill cranes reared at Patuxent Wildlife Research Center in Laurel, Maryland were sporadically released into Fl orida from 1971 1991 as preliminar y trials to develop release techniques for captive-reared whooping cranes. Fourteen 5-month-old captive-reared sandhill cranes were released in 1971 near Palmdale in Gl ades County (Figure 4-1). None of these birds were observed associating with wild sandhill cranes and all died within 3 months without leaving the immediate area (Nesbitt 1978). From 1974 1976, 4 captive-reared sandhill cranes ranging from 6 months to 4 years-of-age were releas ed on Paynes Prairie in Alachua County (Figure 41). Three died and 1 paired with a wild sandh ill crane and set up a te rritory on Paynes Prairie (Nesbitt 1978). Additional releases took plac e on Paynes Prairie from 1986 1987. Twenty-

PAGE 51

51 seven 9 to 10-month-old captive-reared sandhill cran es were released. Survivors dispersed to Gilchrist, Levy, Marion, Putnam, and Sumter co unties (Nesbitt and Carpenter 1993) (Figure 41). In 1991, 15 captive-reared sandhill cranes rangi ng from 1 to 2 years-of-age were placed in a holding pen on Kanapaha Prairie in Alachua County (Figure 4-1). The 11 surviving birds were then moved to a release pen on the Prairie Unit of Three Lakes WMA in Osceola County (Figure 4-1). Some experimental birds interacted with wild sandhill cranes, and two formed pairs with wild sandhill cranes (Nesbitt and Folk 1992). In 1993, the first captive -reared whooping cranes were released at Three Lakes WMA. Materials and Methods I was unable to locate any blood samples collect ed prior to 1971. As a result I could not test the hypothesis that wild bi rds in Florida were exposed to IBDV serotype 2 prior to the release of captive-reared cranes. Instead, I analyzed samples co llected from wild birds in an area where contact with captive-reared cranes was hi ghly unlikely, and hypothe sized that these birds had been exposed to the virus. From 1991 2000, Dr. Marilyn Spalding archived 477 wild sandhill crane serum samples collected in 7 counties (Alachua, Citrus, Lake Levy, Marion, Osceola, Sumter) in Florida. Samples were eliminated from consideration if they were collected in a county after captivereared cranes had been released there or were kn own to have dispersed ther e. Unfortunately, this eliminated from consideration all but 3 samples collected in Lake County in 1993 (Figure 4-1). These samples were tested for antibodies to IBDV serotype 2. The archived samples also included serum collected from captive-reared sa ndhill cranes prior to their release on Three Lakes WMA in 1991. Samples for 10 of the 11 birds released were tested for antibodies to IBDV serotype 2.

PAGE 52

52 To gain further insight into prevalence of exposure and length of time the virus has been present in wild sandhill cranes of Florida, 108 archived seru m samples collected in Alachua County (northern Florida) and Osceola County (central Florida) from May 1992 March 1998 were tested for antibodies to IBDV serotype 2. These samples came from 98 individuals. All serum samples were sent to the Poultry Diagnostic & Research Center (College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Georgia, 953 College St ation Road, Athens, GA 30602) for evaluation. They were tested for IBDV serotype 2 antibodies using the beta procedure (constant virus/diluted serum) described in Chapter 2. It is unknown what titer level indicates true e xposure to IBDV. Previous studies of wild birds have considered titer leve ls ranging from 1:16 to 1:80 as evidence of exposure (van den Berg 2001, Hollmen et al. 2000, Ogawa et al. 19 98, Gardner et al., 1997, Wilcox et al. 1983). For the purposes of this study I assumed that a ti ter level of 1:16 or less was not indicative of exposure to the virus. Birds with a titer level of 1:32 or greater were considered exposed to the virus. I detected an age effect on seroprevalence in the sandhill cr ane samples collected for this study (reported in Chapter 3); howev er, the adult sample size was small (n = 7). Analysis of the archived samples separated by age allowed for fu rther investigation of this finding. Samples were separated into age categories. Juveniles ranged in age from 55 days to 10 months. Subadults ranged from 12 months to 2.7 years. Adults ranged from 3 to 10+ years. To determine if likelihood of exposure (# samples with titer level 1:32) was independent of age, the likelihood ratio (G) test for independence wa s used. Post-hoc analysis on each pair of treatments was done using the same test. To de termine if average titer level differed by age, a

PAGE 53

53 Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric ANOVA was used. Post -hoc analysis on each pair of treatments was done using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. Exposure prevalence and average titer leve l of wild turkeys sampled in this study (reported in Chapter 3) differed significantly am ong locations. Analysis of archived samples allowed for further investigation of this result. To determine if mean titer level differed between sandhill cranes captured in Alachua and Osceola counties, a Wilcoxon rank sum test was used. To determine if likelihood of expos ure (# samples with titer level 1:32) was independent of location, a likelihood ratio (G) test for independ ence was used. All tests were 2-tailed and considered significant at P 0.05. Analysis was performed usi ng the statistical software JMP 7 (SAS 2007). Results Of the three samples collected from wild sa ndhill cranes in Lake County in 1993, all birds were exposed to IBDV serotype 2. Titer levels ranged from 1:32 to 1:128. None of the samples collected from captive-reared sandhill cranes rele ased on Three Lakes WMA in 1991 had titer levels high enough to indicate exposure. Ti ter levels ranged from 1:0 to 1:4. Forty-six percent of samples collected from wild sandhill cranes in Alachua and Osceola counties had titer levels high enough to indicate exposure to IBDV serotype 2 (n = 108, median = 1:16, range = 1:0 to 1:1024, mean = 1:52, SE = 11) Sixty-three percent of adults, 56% of subadults, and 13% of juveniles had been exposed to the virus (Table 4-1, Figure 4-2). Juveniles had significantly lower exposure prevalence than both adults (P<0.0001) and subadults (P<0.0002), but there was not a si gnificant difference between a dults and subadults. Average titer level differed among all age groups (P< 0.0001) with adults having significantly higher average titer levels than subadults (P=0.0043) and juveniles (P<0.0001), and subadults having significantly higher average ti ter levels than juveniles (p=0.0001).

PAGE 54

54 Samples collected in Alachua County had significantly higher average titer level (P=0.0291) and exposure prevalence (P=0.0307) than those collected in Osceola County. In Alachua County, 54% of samples had titer levels high enough to indicate exposure, and earliest evidence of exposure came from samples collecte d on May 7, 1992. (Table 4-2, Figure 4-3). In Osceola County, 38% of birds ha d titer levels high enough to i ndicate exposure, and earliest evidence of exposure came from samples collec ted on October 1, 1992 (Table 4-2, Figure 4-3). Discussion All 3 sandhill crane samples collected in Lake County prior to the release/dispersal of captive-reared cranes to that area, had titer levels high enoug h to indicate exposure to IBDV serotype 2. Although this may be evidence that th e release of captive-rear ed cranes was not the original source of the virus, I cannot discount the possibility that wild birds having contact with captive-reared cranes dispersed to th e area. Therefore, I am unable to rule out the possibility that captive-reared cranes were the original source of the virus in wild birds of Florida. However, because 10 of the 11 captive-re ared sandhill cranes released on Three Lakes WMA in 1991 did not have titer levels high enough to indicate exposure (1 crane was not tested), we can be fairly confident that this particular release was not the source of the virus in wild birds of Florida. Significantly higher exposure prevalence and average titer levels were found in adult sandhill cranes when compared to juvenile cranes Subadults were intermediate between adults and juveniles as there was no statistical differenc e in prevalence of exposure between adults and subadults, but there was a significant difference in mean titer level. This is because the majority of subadult samples indicating expo sure (75%) had a tite r level of 1:32, the lowest possible titer level to indicate exposure. There were very few samples at the higher end of the spectrum, with

PAGE 55

55 no subadult birds having a titer level higher than 1:128. In cont rast, 31% of adults had titer levels greater than 1:128 and only 19 % had a titer level of 1:32. The significant trend toward hi gher titer levels as the bird s age suggests that there is constant re-exposure or that birds remain carriers of the virus. If sandhill cranes are re-exposed to the virus throughout their lifetime they coul d mount a more effective immune response with each subsequent exposure thus leading to higher titer levels as the birds age. Although unknown for IBDV in cranes, birds that are carriers of a vi rus could have a latent infection that results in intermittent shedding of the virus throughout their life. This could result in higher ti ter levels as the birds age as well.

PAGE 56

56 Figure 4-1. Captive-reared sandhill crane and whooping crane release s ites (depicted with triangles) and dispersal areas (depicted with dots). Po lk and Lake County release sites are locations where sentinel chickens were placed (Chapter 2). Table 4-1. Statistical results fo r exposure prevalence by age of archived sandhill crane samples collected in Alachua and Osceola co unties from May 1992 to March 1998. Age n Mean SE Median Range Adult 41 1:104 27 1:641:4 to 1:1024 Subadult 36 1:28 4 1:321:2 to 1:128 Juvenile 31 1:12 3 1:041:0 to 1:64

PAGE 57

57 0 5 10 15 20 02481632641282561024Titer Level# of Samples Adults Subadults JuvenilesFigure 4-2. Frequency of titer levels for juveni le, subadult, and adult archived sandhill crane samples collected in Alachua and Osceo la counties from May 1992 to March 1998 (n=108). Table 4-2. Statistical results for exposure prevalence by county of archived sandhill crane samples collected in Alachua and Osceo la counties from May 1992 to March 1998. County n Mean SD Median Range Alachua 55 1:70 149 1:321:2 to 1:1024 Osceola 53 1:33 53 1:161:0 to 1:256

PAGE 58

58 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 02481632641282561024Titer Level# of Samples Alachua County Osceola County Figure 4-3. Frequency of titer levels for archived sandhill crane samples collected in Alachua and Osceola counties from May 1992 to March 1998 (n=108).

PAGE 59

59 CHAPTER 5 SYNTHESIS AND SIGNIFICANCE Wild turkeys and sandhill cranes throughout Florida have been exposed to IBDV serotype 2. The virus has been present in Florida for at least 15 years and is available to infect susceptible hosts. Because we know so little about the distribution of this virus in the environment and its mode of transmission, it is imperative that we conduct further research in order to learn what, if any, steps can be taken to minimize the effect s of this virus on the survival of endangered whooping cranes. The presence of th e virus in Florida coul d not be linked with certainty to the reintroduction project, but the ev idence is consistent with the virus being present in the environment for a long time. Implications for the Whooping Crane Reintroduction Project Many of the wild turkey a nd sandhill crane blood collection sites overlap with areas where whooping cranes are curren tly found or have been found in the past. Therefore whooping cranes, both resident and migratory, could come in contact with wild turkeys and sandhill cranes that have been exposed to IBDV serotype 2. In addition, although these findings do not rule out other potential exposure mechanisms, they do sugg est that post-release in teraction with wild birds of Florida is one potent ial exposure mechanism for w hooping cranes involved in the 1997/98 and 2001/02 mortality events. The presence of this virus in wild turkeys and sandhill cranes of Florida is especially concerning for the resident flock of whooping cranes because they nest and raise their chicks in Florida. When chickens are exposed to IBDV be tween 3 and 6 weeks of age, symptoms rapidly appear and mortality rates can approach 30%. Wh en chickens are exposed before 3 weeks of age a severe, prolonged immunosuppressi on results, leaving the birds vul nerable to normally benign disease agents (Lukert and Saif 2003). The effect of exposure to IBDV on prefledgling

PAGE 60

60 whooping crane chicks is unknown at this time. However, the impact to young chickens suggests that if whooping crane chic ks hatched in the wild are expos ed to the virus at an early age, this could greatly reduce chick survival pot ential. Conversely, the relatively high titers maintained by adults may be passed on to the chicks and protect them at this otherwise vulnerable period in their lives. Age Effect on Seroprevalence Significantly higher exposure prevalence and average titer levels were found in adult sandhill cranes captured for this study and in ar chived samples, when compared to juvenile cranes. These findings are consistent with the findings of Spalding et al. (2006) that exposure prevalence in whooping cranes incr eased with age. The lower seroprevalence and titer levels in juveniles could be explained by juvenile cran es having a shorter exposure time and immature immune system. The higher seroprevalence and tite r levels in older birds suggest that there is constant re-exposure or that bird s remain carriers of the virus. However, there is also the possibility that this age effect on seroprevalence reflects decreased survival of sandhill cranes infected at a young age (Schettler et al. 2001, Garvin et al. 2004) The effect of exposure on sandhill crane chicks is unknown at this time. However, the impact to young chickens suggests that if sandhill crane chicks hatche d in the wild are exposed to th e virus at an early age, chick survival could be greatly reduced. If exposed ch icks are less likely to survive then they are consequently less likely to be sampled, biasing th e chick samples toward birds that have not been exposed to the virus. Therefore, investigation into the pathogenicity of IBDV in sandhill cranes is warranted. Variation in Exposure Prevalence among Sites Prevalence of exposure in wild turkeys and archived sandhill crane samples varied among sites. Future research should investig ate exposure prevalence in relation to potential

PAGE 61

61 sources of infection such as domestic poultry faci lities and small family farms with free-ranging back yard poultry. However, it is important that the research project contro l for effect of year as viral occurrence may be cyclic in nature. Transmission Mechanisms There are 2 subspecies of the sandhill crane found in Florida. The Florida sandhill crane ( Grus canadensis pratensis ) is resident, and the greater sandhill crane ( Grus canadensis tabida ) is migratory. These 2 subspecies interact when greater sandhill cranes are in Florida during the winter. The role that greater sa ndhill cranes play in the epidem iology of IBDV in wild birds of Florida is unknown, and certainly warrants furt her investigation. Out of the 108 archived samples analyzed, 6 came from greater sandhill cran es. One of these birds had been exposed to the virus. Therefore, greater sandhill cranes ma y become exposed to the virus on their wintering grounds in Florida and carry the vi rus north with them. Or it is possible that greater sandhill cranes were exposed first, and are the original source of th e virus in wild birds of Florida. Either way, this is a potential transmission mech anism for IBDV throughout the flyway. The possibility that wild bird s were exposed to the virus as a result of domestic poultry operations or disposal of poultry products has not been addressed in this study but certainly remains a potential source of exposure. The use of poultry litter containing feces as fertilizer in Floridas agricultural industry remains one potential mechanism for transmission of the virus from domestic operations to the wild. Farmers should be educated on th e importance of properly composting chicken litter to e liminate the possibility of disease transfer. In addition, investigation into methods that minimize the tr ansfer of mealworms w ithin the litter could greatly reduce the potential for tr ansmission from domestic operations to the wild. Research into potential insect vectors is n eeded as well, and should focus on mealworms, dung beetles, and mosquitoes.

PAGE 62

62 LIST OF REFERENCES Ahad, A. 2002. Isolation and pathogenic characte rizations of IBDV isolate from an outbreak of IBD in a rural poultry unit in Bangladesh. Th esis, The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Copenhagen, Denmark and Banglad esh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, Bangladesh. Allan, W. H., J. T. Faragher, and G. A. Cullen. 1972. Immunosuppression by the infectious bursal agent in chickens immunized against Ne wcastle disease. Veterinary Records 90: 511-512. Barnes, H. J., J. Wheeler, and D. Reed. 1982. Se rologic evidence of inf ectious bursal disease virus infection in Iowa turkey s. Avian Diseases 26: 560-565. Benton, W. J., M. S. Cover, J. K. Rosenberg er, and R. S. Lake. 1967. Physicochemical properties of the infectio us bursal agent (IBA). Av ian Disease 11: 438-445. Berger, J. 1990. Persistence of different-sized populations: an empirical assessment of rapid extinctions in bighorn sheep. Conservation Biology 4: 91-98. Campbell, G. 2001. Investigati on into evidence of e xposure to infectious bursal disease virus (IBDV) and chick infectious anaemia virus (C IAV) in wild birds in Ireland. Pages 230235 in Proceedings of the International Sym posium on Infectious Bursal Disease and Chicken Infectious Anaemia, 2001, Rauischholzhausen, Germany. Chin, R. P., R. Yamamoto, L. Weiqing, K. M. Lam, and T. B. Farver. 1984. Serological survey of infectious bursal disease vi rus serotypes 1 and 2 in Califor nia turkeys. Avian Diseases 28(4): 1026-1036. Daszak, P., and A. A. Cunningham. 2000. Emerging infectious diseases of wildlifethreats to biodiversity and human healt h. Science 287(5452): 443-449. Dunford, J. C., and P. E. Kaufman. 2006. Lesser mealworm, Alphitobius diaperinus University of Florida Institute of Food a nd Agricultural Sciences Publication Number EENY-367. Folk, M. J., S. A. Nesbitt, J. M. Parker, M. G. Spalding, S. B. Baynes, and K. L. Candelora. 2006. Current status of non migratory whooping cranes (G rus americana ) in Florida. Proceedings of North American Crane Workshop 10 In Press: 00-00. Gardner, H., K. Kerry, M. Riddle, S. Brouwer, a nd L. Gleeson. 1997. Poultry virus infection in Antarctic penguins. Nature 387: 245. Garvin, M. C., K. A. Tarvin, L. M. Stark, G. E. Woolfenden, J. W. Fitzpatrick, and J. F. Day. 2004. Arboviral infection in two species of w ild jays (Aves: Corvidae): Evidence for population impacts. J. Med. Entomol. 41(2): 215-225.

PAGE 63

63 Gauthier-Cleric, M., N. Eterra dossi, D. Toquin, M. Guittet, G. Kuntz, and Y. Le Maho. 2002. Serological survey of the king penguin, Aptenodytes patagonicus in Crozet Archipelago for antibodies to infectious bursal disease, influenza A and Newcastle disease viruses. Polar Biology 25: 316-319. Giambrone, J. J., O. J. Fletcher, P. D. Lukert, R. K. Page, and C. E. Eidson. 1978. Experimental infection of turkeys with in fectious bursal disease virus. Avian Diseases 22: 451-458. Glenn, T.C., W. Stephan, and M.J. Beaun. 1999. Effects of a population bottleneck on whooping crane mitochondrial DNA variation. Conservation Biology 13 (5): 1097-1107 Hartup, B. K., and H. S. Sellers. 2006. Serologi cal survey for infectious bursal disease virus exposure in captive cranes. Proceedings of North American Crane Workshop 10 In Press: 00-00. Hollmen, T., M. Kilpi, M. Hario, L. H. Creekmore, and M. R. Petersen. 2000. Infectious bursal disease virus antibodies in eider ducks and herring gulls. Condor 102: 688-691. Hofle, U., J. M. Blanco, and E. F. Kaleta. 2001. Neutralising antibod ies against infectious bursal disease virus in sera of free-living a nd captive birds of prey from central Spain (Preliminary Results). 2001. Pages 247-251 in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Infectious Bursal Disease and Chicken Infectious Anaemia. 2001, Rauischholzhausen, Germany. Howie, R. I., and J. Thorsen. 1981. Identification of a strain of infectious bursal disease virus isolated from mosquitoes. Canadian Jour nal of Comparative Me dicine 45: 315-320. Jackwood, D. J., Y. M. Saif, P. D. Moorhead, and R. N. Dearth. 1981. Infectious bursal disease virus and Alcaligenes faecalis infections in turkeys. Avian Diseases 26: 365-374. Jackwood, D. J., Y. M. Saif, and J. H. Hughes. 1982. Characteristics and serologic studies of two serotypes of infectious bursal disease viru s in turkeys. Avian Diseases 26 (4): 871882. Jackwood, D. J., R. E. Gough, and S. E. Somm er. 2005. Neucleotide and amino acid sequence analysis of a birnavirus isolated from penguins. Veterinary Record 156: 550-552. Jones, K. L., T. C. Glenn, R. C. Lacy, J. R. Pierce, N. Unruh, C. M. Mirande, and F. ChavezRamirez. 2002. Refining the whooping cr ane studbook by incorporating microsatellite DNA and leg-banding analyses. Conservation Biology 16: 789-799. Lafferty, K. D., and L. R. Gerber. 2002. Good medicine for cons ervation biology: The intersection of epidemiology and conserva tion theory. Conservation Biology 16: 593-604. Lukert, P. D., and Y. M. Saif. 2003. Infectious bursal disease. Pages 161-179 in Y. M. Saif, editor. Diseases of Poultry. Eleventh edit ion. Iowa State Univer sity Press, Ames, IA, USA.

PAGE 64

64 McAllister, J. C., C. D. Steelman, L. A. Newb erry, and J. K. Skeeles. 1995. Isolation of infectious bursal disease virus from the lesser mealworm, Alphitobius diaperinus (Panzer). Poultry Science 74(1): 45-49. Murphy, D. W. 1990. Disease transfer studies in a dead bird composter. Pages 25-29 in Proceedings of the 1990 National Poultry Wast e Management Symposium. 3 October-4 October 1990, North Carolina, USA. Nawathe, D. R., O. Onunkwo, and I. M. Smith. 1978. Serological eviden ce of infection withthe virus of infectious bursal diseas e in wild and domestic birds in Nigeria. Veterinary Record 102: 444. Nesbitt, S. A. 1978. Notes on suitability of capti ve-reared sandhill cranes for release into the wild. Proceedings of North American Crane Workshop: 85-88. Nesbitt, S. A., and M. J. Folk. 1992. W hooping crane reintroduction in Florida final performance report. Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, Research Laboratory, Gainesville, FL, USA. Nesbitt, S. A., and J. W. Carpenter. 1993. Surv ival and movements of greater sandhill cranes experimentally released in Florida. Journal of Wildlife Management 57(4): 673-679. OBrien, S. J., M. E. Roelke, L. Marker, A. Newm an, C. A. Winkler, D. Me ltzer, L. Cooley, J. F. Evermann, M. Bush, and D. E. Wildt. 1985. Ge netic basis for species vulnerability in the cheetah. Science 277: 1428-1434. Ogawa, M., T. Wakuda, T. Yamaguchi, K. Mura ta, and A. Setiyono. 1998. Seroprevalence of infectious bursal disease virus in free-living wild birds in Japan. Journal of Veterinary Medical Science 60(11): 1277-1297. O'Malley, C. M. 1990. Aedes vexans (Meigen): an old foe. Proceedings of New Jersey Mosquito Control Association. Pages 90-95. SAS Institute 2007. JMP 7. SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina, USA. Schettler, E., T. Langgemach, P. Sommer, J. Streich, and K. Frolich. 2001. Seroepizootiology of selected infectious disease agents in free -living birds of prey in Germany. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 37(1): 145 Smith, B. L. 2001. Winter feeding of elk in western North America. Journal of Wildlife Management 65(2): 173-190. Snyder, N. F. R., S. R. Derrickson, S. R. Beissi nger, J. W. Wiley, T. B. Smith, W. D. Toone, and B. Miller. 1996. Limitations of captive breeding in endangered species recovery. Conservation Biology 10(2): 338-348.

PAGE 65

65 Spalding, M. G., J. M. Kinsella, S. A. Nesbitt, M. J. Folk, and G. W. Foster. 1996. Helminth and arthropod parasites of expe rimentally introduced whooping cr anes in Florida. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 32(1): 44-50. Spalding, M. G., H. S. Sellers, B. K. Hartup, a nd G. H. Olsen. 2006. A wasting syndrome in released whooping cranes in Florida associated with infectious bur sal disease titers. Proceedings of North American Crane Workshop 10 In Press: 00-00. Thorne, T. E., and E. S. Williams. 1988. Disease and endangered species: the black-footed ferret as a recent example. Cons ervation Biology 2(1): 66-74. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Whooping Crane Recovery Plan. Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA. van de Bildt, M. W. G., T. Kuiken, A. M. Visee, S. Lema, T. R. Fitzjohn, and A. Osterhaus. 2002. Distemper outbreak and its effect on African wild dog conservation. Emerging Infectious Diseases 8: 211-213. Van den Berg, T. P., A. Ons, M. Dolores, M ., and J. F. Rodriguez. 2001. Experimental inoculation of game/ornamental birds with a very virulent strain of IBDV. Pages 236-246 in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Infectious Bursal Disease and Chicken Infectious Anaemia. 2001, Rauischholzhausen, Germany. Varela, A., JM. Kinsella, and M. G. Spalding. 20 01. Presence of encysted immature nematodes in a released whooping crane (G rus americana). Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 32 (4): 523. Weisman, J., and S. B. Hitchner. 1978. Infecti ous bursal disease virus infection attempts in turkeys and coturnix quail. Avian Diseases 22: 604-608. Wilcox, G. E., R. L. P. Flower, W. Baxendale, and J. S. Mackenzie. 1983. Serological survey of wild birds in Australia for the prevalence of antibodies to egg drop syndrome 1976 (EDS76) and infectious bursal disease viruses. Avian Pathology 12:135-139. Wiley, N. 2005. Bobwhite management and hunti ng in Floridas ranchla nds: an overview of rules and regulations. Proceedings of quail management short course 1: 76-80. Woodford, M. H., and P. B. Rossiter. 1994. Diseas e risks associated with wildlife translocation projects. Pages 178-198 in Olney, P. J. S., Mace, G. M. and A. T. C. Feistner, editors. Creative Conservation. Chapman & Hall, London, UK. Woodroffe, R. 1999. Managing disease threats to wild mammals. Animal Conservation 2: 185193.

PAGE 66

66 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Kristen Lee Candelora was born in Gainesv ille, FL in 1974. She grew up in Tampa, graduating from Chamberlain Hi gh School in 1992. Kristen earne d a B.A. in psychology from the University of North Carolina at Wilmington in 1997. Following graduation, she returned to Tampa to work as a Crisis Counselor on a Baker Act Unit. Kristen earned a B.S. in wildlife ecology and conservation from the University of Florida in 2002. Upon graduation, she began work as a Whooping Crane Biologist for the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commi ssion (FWC). After working fo r FWC for two years, Kristen entered the Wildlife Ecology and Conservation M.S. program at the University of Florida. She continued working for FWC while completing her masters project. She received the Best Student Paper award at the 10th North American Crane Workshop in Zacatecas, Mexico and the Florida Chapter of The Wildlife Society spri ng meeting in Cocoa Beach, Florida. Upon completion of her M.S. program, Kris ten began work as the Private Lands Coordinator for the Upland Ecosys tem Restoration Project.


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101206_AAAAEW INGEST_TIME 2010-12-07T00:44:32Z PACKAGE UFE0021384_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 31877 DFID F20101206_AACUCW ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH candelora_k_Page_46.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
1498f7bd0e4c61cebc2f7f3802342605
SHA-1
a44597355e19ef60b276630707008b8bdb9d1276
10866 F20101206_AACUMQ candelora_k_Page_46.QC.jpg
bd7caa41f9df45e387823b7cbaba2ee6
f3abe36699fdc956293f1c6c7be58a0987708e99
57029 F20101206_AACUHT candelora_k_Page_14.pro
2d81e7ac8a4fdc3619f5f0e1fbcafc1c
2908908352cff78f8620a6f8ad4fa6f851a43e07
20130 F20101206_AACUCX candelora_k_Page_48.jpg
b544a6b823cb31e55ca45c481c9fb8c8
03476ee420ea0951050c2b639a1ebdea3c37f672
25711 F20101206_AACUMR candelora_k_Page_13.QC.jpg
2fcd030b3ef3165767d8013ab40733a3
f4febf6e554c20904237a7506df9e3e956683382
56439 F20101206_AACUHU candelora_k_Page_15.pro
d792310e2de223cc1e9711216acc54ef
70e2aea45fbf6b3901b7361bc158dbb4256f9a68
73861 F20101206_AACUCY candelora_k_Page_50.jpg
1becf4095d32f1169bf852b89b08a70c
9dcca3c4887f5ab1847731b834cf5e174d31c8c1
6786 F20101206_AACUMS candelora_k_Page_37thm.jpg
77d31efda1db019c5844df8a35e5e516
3e53a97fa64ed9ea201375e8a786b69c867d3cd3
49018 F20101206_AACUHV candelora_k_Page_17.pro
a0275bc97eacbdabaac411c75a07ab0b
23542f4e48e0e673b2fa958a131e907186e8e083
71227 F20101206_AACUCZ candelora_k_Page_51.jpg
15f49d5a0c6e4a79cbf71f2300693de2
4356179aa0c4233d16c3f7276c7cf425d6ba3faa
24181 F20101206_AACUMT candelora_k_Page_59.QC.jpg
b74a8c5e289609d58ace3c7f12874b0d
72cc472a85318b7ff601567669f88aa29d2dcad6
46999 F20101206_AACUHW candelora_k_Page_18.pro
84e76ede0422134305708522acea2bff
0901159412696e67981f78e77311cc0598b613c7
1997 F20101206_AACTYA candelora_k_Page_52.txt
1f24eb54b8247a740296921b76d0501a
809fd0adc55a98c19735645ab74aee5af5e0dc07
50409 F20101206_AACUAA candelora_k_Page_40.pro
52a98f0627eb0004fa0f36556c655041
66e15893781a9fcff65db4113bda4b39c13c7f8e
6781 F20101206_AACUMU candelora_k_Page_59thm.jpg
f85a3b0f9872696097b019ee88cd1f04
afbda81e1af4c8e78564b5fece03fe9226e1cd58
54560 F20101206_AACUHX candelora_k_Page_19.pro
5c0c6eb65c0a396dfd49e28011e96caf
84d6829995a5cffb0513b1b4189636facb7b3b49
7070 F20101206_AACTYB candelora_k_Page_30thm.jpg
3623e91b3c1d7054fd667ac8cbee9809
5da8267107cc7bc3fe88aaa804f45ff90c577f8e
26280 F20101206_AACUAB candelora_k_Page_30.QC.jpg
6726819a2906f3a45f7021e3e30397a3
d8e4e1398c0c083d282926a6dba8867ecd667a1a
6430 F20101206_AACUMV candelora_k_Page_52thm.jpg
a0bed186f8fd30ace89a8f1af0ff8b5f
ed41d4b044609735198029c2040e573bcc04e623
46625 F20101206_AACUHY candelora_k_Page_20.pro
60f443d9b58ee017b7a91bdafc5d44f3
2f5fe350ad2e42055140514ee10a9d26f24db297
501076 F20101206_AACTYC candelora_k_Page_57.jp2
2294f213ea04e5986673215bac2b895b
6954c8fc88be52e85f8e88be71966cc3444b6627
1053954 F20101206_AACUAC candelora_k_Page_64.tif
eefb982ff4ee498271667fc69875c0c9
e002588aa88793225a09e0b5b346bf337f76ee78
3810 F20101206_AACUMW candelora_k_Page_03.QC.jpg
983cf8a7ee2858e6eefec3e058afbf9a
3ca7040b53a4b425481d26e9bfd09f98d6728be7
216353 F20101206_AACUFA candelora_k_Page_58.jp2
9f22d52d22426df029747ed56f44d969
d1ab1baa083cb2bb9405a6c757d17f85c677a73b
55423 F20101206_AACUHZ candelora_k_Page_21.pro
a1f04c0259a583d40af217291fe10d03
caca674b8323faa9b4203f3975f2a226d0996986
6851 F20101206_AACTYD candelora_k_Page_40thm.jpg
7d9003a5347016b2e7710c1cec4f2bb0
fa32dae14073da870cbc10ce4ba71993f04feade
35384 F20101206_AACUAD candelora_k_Page_29.jpg
41c8ec1ab1796117c4c5873c71aadd26
7247ea8f8b43e35473666ff75ac6f9fa9e338720
102219 F20101206_AACUMX UFE0021384_00001.xml FULL
879008781a0d86ecbeeef9412b052382
712f211abc0e93b03ecd2e2dae65fc98fee4dd13
111012 F20101206_AACUFB candelora_k_Page_59.jp2
892adeb605f03966912c6704e251f8f7
c50f56df7eea9b7e19e72c79b4b163e0f05ffad0
33041 F20101206_AACTYE candelora_k_Page_55.jpg
9afeafa5e66412883d74d5b7c7c61c92
ffd1f476038b7a25161d1e985022666d742ce3ed
18276 F20101206_AACUAE candelora_k_Page_25.jp2
28d0240e4304b1bdb02c187ab4d0f7f3
9eee795420c44d957b9323c81e86049b0fc22bfe
7264 F20101206_AACUMY candelora_k_Page_01.QC.jpg
147977f266e4cb305e71eb337291437f
c5c3458c75d887f8b4cc6cbc5101c9304de59c51
2190 F20101206_AACUKA candelora_k_Page_21.txt
25467a2cd35aa501b9b7c8f4344376a2
45bde31a2234b0154d6101c53e75d2952036cfe2
113461 F20101206_AACUFC candelora_k_Page_60.jp2
2624c96cdff147897fcc490ddf984e76
40deae4bf17166cd06fb12c0e8c8ac6f1ab008d0
17688 F20101206_AACTYF candelora_k_Page_56.QC.jpg
c0c1199287b671cae356d4450398d59a
1a7ff321ec1f65dbfdf6ac4481f75cdd46bc427c
F20101206_AACUAF candelora_k_Page_12.tif
d71d3dbabcd0d3da5572ee52db2556d3
0a2068a052261e278e39e7a3973a95c57c372443
1343 F20101206_AACUMZ candelora_k_Page_02thm.jpg
356d75d2442d176b3429c116c96fddc4
72c680ba5919a9082c9cff48b05c310695183068
116262 F20101206_AACUFD candelora_k_Page_61.jp2
bc07bba905fee824b201fc7a85edbff8
ab7b0bf873e27dac69883e5fc47ba8ce16e607ab
57553 F20101206_AACTYG candelora_k_Page_56.jpg
290efc84342741cdb0fb74e09eec1aeb
927a9154d6e31d9da21d6d687e3aa547e9c2cf4f
467 F20101206_AACUAG candelora_k_Page_49.txt
ac57d099ff30eb512f310f6721b4c0cb
c15e5a394cd4e388b57ad17550f9077c4bcc629a
2072 F20101206_AACUKB candelora_k_Page_22.txt
c979e0d059004270a378611dd3b5e342
f7330c01f5eef2e2cf9d2703ac053084a1ef74c9
132387 F20101206_AACUFE candelora_k_Page_62.jp2
6219288a6ac2984cf0fc9cc0c2328c50
17baa511312e43cd5c7653f1de30328c5ca16bac
117915 F20101206_AACTYH candelora_k_Page_11.jp2
66aa20123a5cccdfaecda818016f92fc
73094cf2f152c67433b511622d9d2e71cb4b1978
6538 F20101206_AACUAH candelora_k_Page_42thm.jpg
503809e16b916e9befbeec5b610538d4
5f8dabd095e0d53bcc8e303601249cee9ef2a35e
2173 F20101206_AACUKC candelora_k_Page_24.txt
ff34c6844a354cd1f0c835ea6ddaaa6f
2d1b9b124065b6e815ad0bcbf8c3ca5cfd8c1e27
10754 F20101206_AACUPA candelora_k_Page_55.QC.jpg
6aadcc063acacc49208d13b26f153839
15c7cadd40aabda6980d6de82b0ac30016044b3e
145395 F20101206_AACUFF candelora_k_Page_63.jp2
94c51b585c47dbad478998b0059f1a58
7ba1b3cd06c52b0b769b30cabddc9de737ee4640
2040 F20101206_AACTYI candelora_k_Page_23.txt
204e515a2a7bc717450c79144e0cd381
8d8adb409eff375af2dec99745419fddf5edab76
3031 F20101206_AACUAI candelora_k_Page_03.pro
782d91b303181dd89f364fb0ea0f950c
691b4d2f22489e4d27edb39aafe732f6abad1e48
3354 F20101206_AACUPB candelora_k_Page_55thm.jpg
db1b2cbec13557f0b02527e273e6bc90
ba303c7b873f7a01184684d32ead0bb23075d234
128079 F20101206_AACUFG candelora_k_Page_64.jp2
f4de3569b022e6c75e14bb4cd43fe001
c09e926cefdae05e528dd8cf05c2f76b6762518f
6830 F20101206_AACTYJ candelora_k_Page_04thm.jpg
31bf0bcc89058098b45ae96eb8874f0f
c0a773814147cc1305db3a31115555b413e07230
F20101206_AACUAJ candelora_k_Page_10.tif
267bc15b8c85993cc710155e633e99c0
1ef4f422d392770f4a51309db4b301a98deb42de
270 F20101206_AACUKD candelora_k_Page_25.txt
7b05b449f1c712057c4159b1e8459543
679f5bf51a33c2951a88c3a4ee9013a8ee2fa1d8
13119 F20101206_AACUPC candelora_k_Page_57.QC.jpg
d51e9a77878c840f53ab71266a80c9fe
8ad4fe428f62ff4b836c075b4ce88dd483e6b840
128236 F20101206_AACUFH candelora_k_Page_65.jp2
8fb7561e1a051d48e218c10740f782a6
d08523b8bc2fa09c812a4a7bbc19b58bf4262b51
13907 F20101206_AACTYK candelora_k_Page_57.pro
02a864590894e539c2ee16d0b228168d
20419a2b519aeeb798b8f1355e62cd925b596d2c
6688 F20101206_AACUAK candelora_k_Page_49.pro
57574d8b8a085b1f37ff230d1058fceb
a5c9430e399609249c4253d7e19437c41d4d3f3d
148 F20101206_AACUKE candelora_k_Page_28.txt
8de9b99fe011d15dfc94bcd3913cc2ed
030f5baa992088297151c4379d8af224ad7870b1
24667 F20101206_AACUPD candelora_k_Page_60.QC.jpg
5c94330f31c21379120cacb1cbf86408
54ac21fc01d8af2a03307c43eb3f7114e06913f5
67628 F20101206_AACUFI candelora_k_Page_66.jp2
44fb4cb71955c2aeaedcdd8d463e2c17
653ce94717ef64db3bd74aac461e664634d16318
536 F20101206_AACTYL candelora_k_Page_46.txt
fb772d6ff9b3c09428b48f91af8db5a5
f5ee3daa957032427f54127014ac19954b3251e3
2044 F20101206_AACUAL candelora_k_Page_33.txt
628cd32e71ecd63fdff44342f2160296
850ed43d6a6f08a821fcfb365887ce93c6ce6efd
133 F20101206_AACUKF candelora_k_Page_29.txt
206738f6ec2ec2e8814b64b221a820ed
6bdf4732df5f73a530db776e762fb7198eb2e9c8
25876 F20101206_AACUPE candelora_k_Page_61.QC.jpg
a10f61e55915772f7b44c042da4ff1d2
79759a4e777029ad77d4325884bd451f8eb2e1cf
F20101206_AACUFJ candelora_k_Page_01.tif
d83437ce9292b33b19f1f7acae81854e
40fdbd6c946cccb030f9ae43e22a6a3dc430f1eb
75154 F20101206_AACTYM candelora_k_Page_53.jpg
bcc4508d2cd6c7892b4b395a19b169e7
8a5a480a6542389a079f64b9e788324c5c3414aa
9952 F20101206_AACUAM candelora_k_Page_03.jp2
a7583945406ac76edd5299fbdd0e9065
65666a8fb50583c94b8f7b0381c9c4b745650658
2070 F20101206_AACUKG candelora_k_Page_30.txt
019287ab0a8aa917fe8689fde95e5e20
130fb793c1491948d411937cdbed17134efee5f1
6953 F20101206_AACUPF candelora_k_Page_61thm.jpg
d4995eedcfaf4ea46e8ab1cdbd895e80
71bad63a4c01e01a0a54fada2d789aaa875e43bb
F20101206_AACUFK candelora_k_Page_02.tif
82bb5f396e662b68bcb076a04ec92689
a815dac075fe304cc2cc0119e8f63cdc9c8fc6fc
71407 F20101206_AACTYN candelora_k_Page_17.jpg
336774e04c210f0ce3d67936b59eb877
a7714c7790c26d5458eca2280494068491d3dac9
923269 F20101206_AACUAN candelora_k_Page_29.jp2
d9f6ad0e434e915150ece213042736f6
dfec0dc9fcf1f3cca6a838445dacb35d4f4bda56
2152 F20101206_AACUKH candelora_k_Page_32.txt
a4f1c8cbc2d6608ea46a15b8b98443a6
039002d23c5eb99cb74a19a289c3e9d873cab9b9
7031 F20101206_AACUPG candelora_k_Page_62thm.jpg
aefec4f05cee5297234b76d9ff96d9e7
33b82768dac947502ae3ec455921799c15b93230
F20101206_AACUFL candelora_k_Page_03.tif
ec6e4c1d08afe5b7b894e5fe97a1e3e3
4439acdb428a2bcfc2b766a115b9ca3064594350
6673 F20101206_AACTYO candelora_k_Page_51thm.jpg
8c468dad15ef933c2969b72c2e258bc3
d8a2d390fca1a32d4383ca35a8d44e06a9c69c2f
118842 F20101206_AACUAO candelora_k_Page_34.jp2
2afdf53048ab33d10342ab587ded5ade
2ec482705d87b78f90a01e1e03d9f61cd2e85d74
2016 F20101206_AACUKI candelora_k_Page_35.txt
b83f14b8cff6abd75ace347d546200d5
69d6ba41592fc38ed72e43d00d48c83b0a40dd8d
7403 F20101206_AACUPH candelora_k_Page_63thm.jpg
ecb28a48252776dec6ab2e42d17d842e
654f8025508fd758f92eb8af383b6ae65d8ba420
F20101206_AACUFM candelora_k_Page_04.tif
43671249cca6e944a6dcaaeaa0126b83
d46519f827b3919aedb296fc59940a14723249b6
43861 F20101206_AACTYP candelora_k_Page_07.jpg
06d96ded18444794730e1f8b225cf954
4ae31afbc4317aeec04e16f4b7810b178d23ecaa
50585 F20101206_AACUAP candelora_k_Page_42.pro
887929e3b32c3fbf25f2463ba45bee19
a2b098844fb0c9907117d3177c7400e4a3164687
2164 F20101206_AACUKJ candelora_k_Page_36.txt
0adfc776f21c331d1dc6520763f9c239
6a2d6aa69fd429aa34ad88f3e93cc814627a0e4e
25271604 F20101206_AACUFN candelora_k_Page_05.tif
4a59ab2788123457228e61892d59dbe8
87ed92138ee91e274c32ee5c920aee874e68b3d8
3112 F20101206_AACTYQ candelora_k_Page_02.QC.jpg
831723e1d11c8bc187f05c7448ad4746
0095bca653bc10af2a047c76c6b275d11ffa90c5
51842 F20101206_AACUAQ candelora_k_Page_50.pro
9eeb75f69ad2a414899252d3f8b292f6
f949c8393de6f747304994ba8a5a1db07c7ae194
2078 F20101206_AACUKK candelora_k_Page_37.txt
4ed547af4c14d893c971e6e8c691754b
85c52b81f36fee60c2466473b791799383fe7086
25482 F20101206_AACUPI candelora_k_Page_64.QC.jpg
b4a5ea87261f2176c6cca65e66b46488
13ec8f61953b8647f37cc78ff84caae16edd03b4
F20101206_AACUFO candelora_k_Page_06.tif
d7f4d531e1846869f7a9919c36243194
7e5a8af10ef50499c833e95cfcdcd43f5684bcac
F20101206_AACTYR candelora_k_Page_52.tif
d290c2897f56f69ea39012d95059eb55
8964bde709931186dab4a9448f16f3023d953859
F20101206_AACUAR candelora_k_Page_55.tif
5a7fedb5d7b676d1e62a882ce5b1cb78
8ab87ca4b5d7404d49edf2ad9eea026985fc96f5
2158 F20101206_AACUKL candelora_k_Page_38.txt
ef000a8fb26aa527df51f0c19432a137
d1e7d462c115fc6d9214d8ce0d22b93487736b3e
15748 F20101206_AACUPJ candelora_k_Page_66.QC.jpg
ba3355244d4946ffc632b91eb5382e1b
30cac65e7b8a9830afa12e2128d48df71476221a
F20101206_AACUFP candelora_k_Page_07.tif
04b3cc4ac42e7baa012488c9403605af
ce90ee5378c2f95cee313300b52881bb26902bbe
26419 F20101206_AACUAS candelora_k_Page_07.pro
59c4e9776df87dfb6bc1116e16f469d9
ba77f7dfac89aa2e4e59cc99b760d731873c1881
1761 F20101206_AACUKM candelora_k_Page_39.txt
e1a066394913e3c0230726bda6b2ec17
0b80203d6cbd4df9ac051159bb75f75257090e28
4516 F20101206_AACUPK candelora_k_Page_66thm.jpg
b1e1789f3effac0b4bac1110399f907e
4b771ffb222defc7a1128c9b1267a40818a5a796
F20101206_AACUFQ candelora_k_Page_08.tif
6490788b40454e5bf4214a43b14fbc49
93f86189027781ff55d37a8987fa078dac7dc0ed
F20101206_AACTYS candelora_k_Page_45.tif
a21592aa63c1a9363c39c79efbcca439
30fd8d7be044fa75d7cdeba198a7b7f396796d99
2012 F20101206_AACUAT candelora_k_Page_42.txt
fe03648e6cb9c1e3d50f3cda5858da6c
1c5a65592dc0b3b707aa559e7a5a0d30af532acd
1992 F20101206_AACUKN candelora_k_Page_40.txt
c574c983f9840bd2cb54e8ce62f490d6
697870e86edec389c98f51e4dc16b8f847cf9bf9
F20101206_AACUFR candelora_k_Page_09.tif
31a9bd54bece713e49846ccc7489b6ec
a987214cce8819cf7baaa9c629d0910db071f343
80528 F20101206_AACTYT candelora_k_Page_05.jpg
a853112ee7abe86f63fedfbc9895e569
916415281d938f121440d699d640ca8faa42baf7
535915 F20101206_AACUAU candelora_k_Page_47.jp2
d1912d1cdb5c66ec10f5e3ef4ff8a013
e451b49959b526c5b29ac5880e7dde99acd91461
1734 F20101206_AACUKO candelora_k_Page_41.txt
4381c296ac2a8edf0a6fe69f1fa33f52
5b99584c8380898e45b84bcc254b51e76cbdb5f1
F20101206_AACUFS candelora_k_Page_11.tif
24810e7af6e31fd89f0340db6d3f1df8
7cc6f53fee5f5cf80a5e12dbe4deef04991352bc
2825 F20101206_AACTYU candelora_k_Page_06thm.jpg
7d7f498df31af09721c17b4883731c39
1b1d9ae8b51e719ede4583ffa11b67f16dfce5ed
10174 F20101206_AACUAV candelora_k_Page_28.QC.jpg
abfa8f241d6a2c2536aec3c8c08dcc18
ff1f15fa7fdac1134067d62df37b6f33f6959cfd
858 F20101206_AACUKP candelora_k_Page_44.txt
e8ae64943939c5c28b8ea7a81e64c6b2
6414270f8e946deaf4621ace186267a91e9b4b8d
F20101206_AACUFT candelora_k_Page_13.tif
9b20496cd462809254acaf71db2d2f5c
2f25309c920ada7bddbf21d409fa567cd50a92e7
2191 F20101206_AACTYV candelora_k_Page_34.txt
c2c248b50b22ab1581abe4670d126923
dda46a4b816d73ecf83eb4c24da43a53f5248555
4060 F20101206_AACUAW candelora_k_Page_26thm.jpg
612ba68b1648695dba1bcce08f8d389a
3b0c551e5b1f44f1be5b9af3d33376ee243a1dac
355 F20101206_AACUKQ candelora_k_Page_45.txt
2bdb31204f7f6927e9a52658c46d3c7e
a41a3d0f9b577cc4e6d4910abafbed092f3271b3
F20101206_AACUFU candelora_k_Page_14.tif
1ab1d44537d102f0de266b20d15f3896
2c8c7edf4cd912e1016ec42378afa474707c4e7a
694139 F20101206_AACTYW candelora_k_Page_26.jp2
3397ad0a9ec79598fe11b2bb40686f8c
c93c7f1e67fabe650d67d4a398fd02365997b035
44867 F20101206_AACUAX candelora_k_Page_47.jpg
f9dd1951bbcdbcb938e2c95d83622aa9
a098b47a5f0d9e0b0711b3dba0bf2b574ae19af4
2151 F20101206_AACUKR candelora_k_Page_50.txt
ac26496ab226353947891b501896d3b9
678903562d15e87eed803b99caa76a5f59ff12b2
F20101206_AACUFV candelora_k_Page_15.tif
a5e2f0af43b47074b05f7ac93f39df9a
3ee3a2e2972c89bfb4cd7e9a3575d30385eff053
61169 F20101206_AACTYX candelora_k_Page_64.pro
804a9c87a59109ae8611ff0c47a12f5c
ce481046901004f11fe7e43001fa47560f71683e
989 F20101206_AACUAY candelora_k_Page_27.txt
553effa856e861bebdf89cc488aec66b
7368884c29aaa5dd15f666dbb3e13716feb07cdf
1999 F20101206_AACUKS candelora_k_Page_51.txt
aed8e094b00c2d161f47b6bad52d79b4
7c9329e1216c2778b04fe5ee27546120550bc4b4
F20101206_AACUFW candelora_k_Page_16.tif
5670998c63760982989c9b3b816b0863
8c48e6e29c0de51ad661cf78f1cc0777d262c1b9
1051952 F20101206_AACTYY candelora_k_Page_43.jp2
b7a51b6d359404102b4a8281bf4de883
389146e370e88a3a3819a664e38ea1394992b0c1
2110 F20101206_AACUKT candelora_k_Page_53.txt
e878e3192b2438949a1635f725e925c7
a82c1d4c314b36897dc46ec55418ab3766acb61a
F20101206_AACUFX candelora_k_Page_17.tif
ad8383f1137cad89a1d84f18ead95362
82f859e50e2f4e51030727ff440499ea03ecc9fc
1117 F20101206_AACTYZ candelora_k_Page_47.txt
40ef120db5d8c7513a1750d426848d83
9664f4b68569df5b4de4020ed194c2c1ae043e08
2178 F20101206_AACUAZ candelora_k_Page_43.txt
1600fcbd16fe532ccfcb2683646f33f3
03abd0b301ab1a2873cde1d6956d4446dea13d3d
2136 F20101206_AACUKU candelora_k_Page_54.txt
f5ca1e066305ff858e404bcab2854900
c491392b2bb7b2f7043c1523d6e01e158a1d2337
F20101206_AACUFY candelora_k_Page_18.tif
9ad935a0c905b037425078f6ade6fb97
7f790148bd8e6a7ddf6ef7222d16a960e3bc6485
812 F20101206_AACUKV candelora_k_Page_55.txt
f1457c891404576b7708b6c5548447bc
b084c349de50d1fc63855324c68d4460c1f121c7
F20101206_AACUFZ candelora_k_Page_19.tif
f54eb845daa9ee5b3d287c5eee26837d
20c05912b9ec87b335698f1a41da3183633a6691
969 F20101206_AACUKW candelora_k_Page_56.txt
829c34a2e186d1c1576947e8e6566764
c25b19f968a79b02bca63b751e1ecf426383449b
72885 F20101206_AACUDA candelora_k_Page_52.jpg
8d2709ee199378870b24400e8ae1fa2d
eafb8bee7dab5e3ec930d86fe2aa0a0708a72934
707 F20101206_AACUKX candelora_k_Page_57.txt
6c80d004af82fd3f92ef60d98310b706
a2cb549baad7be0b9c8bc72593945ad9d16ecaed
73934 F20101206_AACUDB candelora_k_Page_54.jpg
eecb8c68d34d22b5e3c40fb7bab3e68d
25c8393d0f7ee808ec7453b8f2c814b756efa384
51230 F20101206_AACUIA candelora_k_Page_22.pro
ec62ebdab3e4bd12485d3f98355557c7
dd0c96ffb1faf76ee0c6356f76728d07266ee00c
431 F20101206_AACUKY candelora_k_Page_58.txt
0e3a064e30a4065c1b6048eff6ede99d
15bc12fa50c1af7efceea9dedde4c931fe05fb90
41868 F20101206_AACUDC candelora_k_Page_57.jpg
2a9e04cf172a03efc5753f3baabdda25
58629ed6c494824c850ea529919ae4e61c79c54b
2113 F20101206_AACUKZ candelora_k_Page_59.txt
4d5d55e6bb5b183492bc843ee377de67
d88342e81f1e29bf0eb479cf9963dd4fbc430d05
24055 F20101206_AACUDD candelora_k_Page_58.jpg
a37cf9960f7ed4d70c45f7e8735d4556
18fee6d912c7b6576520a7fccff03911c98ed917
50365 F20101206_AACUIB candelora_k_Page_23.pro
0d228b7ce347f3a8ee8a912fb58b5290
4f34c79da6cc4fcf8c347217871a8c167edabf5c
74075 F20101206_AACUDE candelora_k_Page_60.jpg
dbb799d86f0d17b76a7efd89baa0b2c6
c591bdbc36fe6772e55caaccacc55c16ebb6710a
1597 F20101206_AACUNA candelora_k_Page_03thm.jpg
0188a428c847b16c2b97064df93a71f5
fa512ba95acc348d60555283ec23ab1860888d8b
55275 F20101206_AACUIC candelora_k_Page_24.pro
cf4f6152e2f975eab7ffbbb2c9e30f66
1f57a295d2ca2c9eb6d599d18b23423ebbfe80e0
76567 F20101206_AACUDF candelora_k_Page_61.jpg
c2145de4e123df4ac153ce02e55ccd7d
012aba269850c0073cbcc8e0a3e9fe16c149c701
21880 F20101206_AACUNB candelora_k_Page_05.QC.jpg
ce7d3b2a6590113e678cf7d84eeb449f
bcd8aeefe71e61988029f80bc0da3942f9b5fafe
6738 F20101206_AACUID candelora_k_Page_25.pro
6455a4df5da86115abd414e7de5cf1bc
689298a20a33f407e10a437b1e1df77872d765c4
90615 F20101206_AACUDG candelora_k_Page_62.jpg
5f3ea6bff43b5ab81b608c472b15f161
dcac5d9861b091ca409cd6d42261cc9a1faebc9c
5322 F20101206_AACUNC candelora_k_Page_05thm.jpg
19d6571d8adbd0cf5ae7b4e807949771
6e9db12889841c8ff910ad0d1f6005f4a7fc4705
15333 F20101206_AACUIE candelora_k_Page_27.pro
23e192f7e05a1aa9206ac0671e4c1da5
f761ce251aef03e8674eddf4469896d35e033cb0
95838 F20101206_AACUDH candelora_k_Page_63.jpg
56f37a3ffe73aa0c7e3fb1e0fac15dcd
5a736bf40669b258fa2d72f28227b62309c73ced
3707 F20101206_AACUND candelora_k_Page_07thm.jpg
0ab37d93252e98775070ab620d67a211
e5d6d3cc4c8e6fd63e501a3098f2d4d9d08c5244
2236 F20101206_AACUIF candelora_k_Page_28.pro
39a51ce4350bc7d51a84142e632a372a
df2fa7c4f892ed060940b2819c55fd8fc8c15850
88883 F20101206_AACUDI candelora_k_Page_64.jpg
420dde95d21d3862d9c6128c62063fd7
c16ed1b490f9ed811ef877939150176fc4719515
4453 F20101206_AACUNE candelora_k_Page_08thm.jpg
826d4089cde5c0e422419d1b7e1911e4
4a95c0b7a4c30673bf1b58fc5a0c671706f1ff40
1950 F20101206_AACUIG candelora_k_Page_29.pro
d4d34b514223aa47a79160a1a0035085
6580bc42bbcae6d4ae742ceb39d2e92e98960f62
85610 F20101206_AACUDJ candelora_k_Page_65.jpg
49b026f296884ede77a84ab111e42a29
9d9301911f78a6bf941dc5d173eedc42f39b1ea4
22565 F20101206_AACUNF candelora_k_Page_09.QC.jpg
1a3b0f9871a5bd91b174f1212cf08771
00564b726fff345405f440b663004064ad0ad6b8
50350 F20101206_AACUIH candelora_k_Page_30.pro
41b20b1ab19207a980a1765d48e0c2f4
fb9af63ddc68a8c2a75de59fba945470c8f7f94c
48133 F20101206_AACUDK candelora_k_Page_66.jpg
ba3ceaad76eaf3942a1bf6deeee9414d
87c4a72d95671bd34eb611802fa1253f5b3b8b3b
51819 F20101206_AACUII candelora_k_Page_33.pro
e35ff9231c9415ec602de8ff85fc8771
0efc67e7e82a5dcf1963f5df70d5a63206157c00
25023 F20101206_AACUDL candelora_k_Page_01.jp2
445d32099afe983d6eed2ee69fa00e03
eb79de0a9ebdacc2b9af49294d000bf5a341229e
6386 F20101206_AACUNG candelora_k_Page_09thm.jpg
c348e7b35891b6f59cdd8ea8fa29910b
3180f95955ede3a75e3f7725048f1ee0ca130208
55549 F20101206_AACUIJ candelora_k_Page_34.pro
2f46857ff14b104c05f5f7ee7b6f4a7c
c2a8ec325fe8d3bf038cfc9190ce0b09bed5bba7
5609 F20101206_AACUDM candelora_k_Page_02.jp2
4a95751ea50020b669d1231094051bc8
c590fc18d32ab618c3914f9c8fdff96ee5d4f84f
23242 F20101206_AACUNH candelora_k_Page_10.QC.jpg
3292f38528997daee9caa4c6941148f3
f3cc762f7a65974b1d3229a03d0217ca3340e1e1
50046 F20101206_AACUIK candelora_k_Page_35.pro
6e41e8ca3a273f77634731f56d73d5d5
4ccd30283401f1bb9a5f3902ee0c25e2f9245ec5
113843 F20101206_AACUDN candelora_k_Page_04.jp2
a8807a234beb476c08eeaba452d3aff7
20a75b405bb0da52ea782aab18fb3d9f4297f6aa
6292 F20101206_AACUNI candelora_k_Page_10thm.jpg
b59204b42f511006a76236d9243acce0
1a7ff7819e3d2e5daa74830ddb8f470d097b4ca4
54886 F20101206_AACUIL candelora_k_Page_36.pro
61ea578a95de512c65a539e7482e78d5
4be196c4a385f489b5cde875384637064cda7158
1051979 F20101206_AACUDO candelora_k_Page_05.jp2
2e80cb46b69afbc34bb6ceea1fd00bda
cdcf38c5ca566752ea2cd9868335918129ff1f51
7012 F20101206_AACUNJ candelora_k_Page_11thm.jpg
f6404bdfda77aee37108590b577fd601
a084e7cfd3df2883423ca6df63830af3928bbc40
52703 F20101206_AACUIM candelora_k_Page_37.pro
c3737cb18480b57eda31831531803b9f
53778bcd99e103a0e8d868572ba5c3f7e2406502
1051956 F20101206_AACUDP candelora_k_Page_07.jp2
352c38ae67796b8c7613db3e762b429b
f63546664c44aea9631088025380ac8e4edc8ad9
7143 F20101206_AACUNK candelora_k_Page_14thm.jpg
8b075bde970872b69acc7de60dc36871
9b253ab72df30f9d5767e5d48f324f9d8f88c727
54606 F20101206_AACUIN candelora_k_Page_38.pro
0aba90713a6c46e16595b771e485a694
77334e68d9d01d8474602f5b9348bc875a4409a4
1051961 F20101206_AACUDQ candelora_k_Page_08.jp2
98a39c104359b397187bc3d62ca39a5a
85b8f44bb5a4066fcaf566c4d6b9faa53da06b0a
26062 F20101206_AACUNL candelora_k_Page_15.QC.jpg
88e85c4cbaa08aa7f630b8dfd7e373f5
20d49f88bfae73d3f8f17f5bc3030ebbe70208e3
43227 F20101206_AACUIO candelora_k_Page_39.pro
ef51f2013a8f9282c333e7e1adc37f36
6a389eb68847d256a6c538ab17e61860e411da9a
105036 F20101206_AACUDR candelora_k_Page_10.jp2
a3a6f43c93f8726fe2f2d66ed0cef1b7
27d1817325bcb86e8bcb9e26517b410d35a91989
6928 F20101206_AACUNM candelora_k_Page_15thm.jpg
5a86af65774270df560989d4145bdce1
ccb6aab00257ce0bd21d0311673bad4c986ffcc6
42440 F20101206_AACUIP candelora_k_Page_41.pro
2c638c5b554fd0956092fdbad293e532
6f62ad6604eabbd8bf462cf2b5af7496cd187db5
117237 F20101206_AACUDS candelora_k_Page_13.jp2
e9a67660491999354de8b69f11b77668
e19e7f72063b929beed9530f5481c400b75de410
24275 F20101206_AACUNN candelora_k_Page_16.QC.jpg
65359670ab9d6c03417f8e5309496253
fdff5b298fa6fb75c0fd6bc3b097156399108cf2
33746 F20101206_AACUIQ candelora_k_Page_43.pro
76863196a3386830410e65cdb8222aaa
48c7a0d7bc35ef14bb3e1dbe56b59b649c5833b9
123638 F20101206_AACUDT candelora_k_Page_14.jp2
6c742dccd37fc07c73d5bf5b96ac59d7
a5697701bbe439c902ff874eb72c452a9fd8b42f
6846 F20101206_AACUNO candelora_k_Page_16thm.jpg
7011bb714700972ba602110e7bebd264
67b861098a57d93d82e2c9314a2567cb5f994c1c
21232 F20101206_AACUIR candelora_k_Page_44.pro
542230f62f084b8403eb4ee8644a0c24
210811119b7114a3263e1a2f758e4c318018b5c5
120735 F20101206_AACUDU candelora_k_Page_15.jp2
4547f643165f9b46d88a0c5c434715bf
91be577aaef16a501484a41c9973e18c5ccbf3d9
22948 F20101206_AACUNP candelora_k_Page_18.QC.jpg
ea0deff2eac81a6335dfd2091d128205
5074ae7482a214a617386bebba1a7253cd1e4074
5591 F20101206_AACUIS candelora_k_Page_45.pro
9a5f0f455d40e66d4a4f85786c97751b
39eebd0a09e697713485a104724cc09baa5ada86
111800 F20101206_AACUDV candelora_k_Page_16.jp2
d8b4314e46ae8b7d4de510cdfcdcca18
cc69579c89c65142cff452fed165df08b121184f
6541 F20101206_AACUNQ candelora_k_Page_18thm.jpg
cb72ac49e74f4b812749373e248ac402
ce2f20b32478512d9b0de3197d014df07be616bc
11852 F20101206_AACUIT candelora_k_Page_46.pro
3cc9f2a287984fb9dad23f2ea5c61ce5
8179fc16271648279f105bd16112b6810a534354
105718 F20101206_AACUDW candelora_k_Page_17.jp2
8a870f64169946e3f578497a2d54c27f
e94c1142253d882be2d2d1accf0036a6073c9554
6967 F20101206_AACUNR candelora_k_Page_19thm.jpg
104a0b91d9f301ab78bf7b8aa2b7d464
e927c55f771903b857da9c983fd9ce7a8f60b33f
21725 F20101206_AACUIU candelora_k_Page_47.pro
97883baa4eca9982bd0efae9d668c985
5216efaeee3ebccf58d2d8ff46811b8e97a98843
103790 F20101206_AACUDX candelora_k_Page_18.jp2
bef8c981c7383d7b883a3280efe3523b
3dff13d86a7332692c87eac43d6bc413f43ff1a7
26202 F20101206_AACUNS candelora_k_Page_21.QC.jpg
cbba45fca278778e49aede5a73a68ebe
f01491932b0dbfa4981df93bc59cd357a0c2ddde
5021 F20101206_AACUIV candelora_k_Page_48.pro
3ced7a557e3662eae4343fa41292dc85
01803e19d54b630e8243796d522d4f67ebccdb2d
118408 F20101206_AACUDY candelora_k_Page_19.jp2
b00d254d504dbc4394ad6d47d8663471
66c00c873bb7d40aa33af0ad2430706f58d35a90
F20101206_AACUNT candelora_k_Page_21thm.jpg
aaad59f9fccfe9fb09c608a8e8072f95
ca408ef421cf2803fee8ddc5e09d622c5df2d4eb
49706 F20101206_AACUIW candelora_k_Page_51.pro
df7a49a7750620c2f9e5750eaa88063d
dc37f996fcf96b15017363349d72959980ae3ad4
25815 F20101206_AACTZA candelora_k_Page_62.QC.jpg
ec38dd2aefccf6d39519b67e8426b30f
a14edfb59e442007932172ffe7dc0b76b1b075ee
F20101206_AACUBA candelora_k_Page_21.tif
9c5a6c7408357082dee470808e025ce7
b503613dddc53df5a044ed19b3c975ccad16de21
104577 F20101206_AACUDZ candelora_k_Page_20.jp2
1e69fe4367b05a60a20b755085345b72
0848ceb4cd771f50957f2d39a2afbc35e080b4c1
24429 F20101206_AACUNU candelora_k_Page_22.QC.jpg
a79f66131a12f01da342ab6dbaeb26aa
e05f9ad2c9c5fc7f9160e053b7182a5c2f28f6b0
50259 F20101206_AACUIX candelora_k_Page_52.pro
b9e1b96c68dc1ca3416381385e03a323
b68da1f7ba6f04d3b1d5c41cbc0991a4b8cb4b37
1994 F20101206_AACTZB candelora_k_Page_31.txt
2ab99cf14ff54725f1665d860f74d037
bf0312f8e4e51c0d1dba3a9b5b63da01882c038e
80734 F20101206_AACUBB candelora_k_Page_14.jpg
3a7ea05ca3de042ab4f7d0578eff2a1c
c30955601b1f25d73eb340a60d93f205e96a83d2
6565 F20101206_AACUNV candelora_k_Page_22thm.jpg
30a3a4ba5400f3303d54ddda48732603
e598742aa0cf986f712528b452ee0bb7e1ec0394
52896 F20101206_AACUIY candelora_k_Page_54.pro
acf6154d7f12226d74e9f0cdd0d2b4a1
727204a5947ec663eb705c9c2ba128af364d2c38
2704 F20101206_AACTZC candelora_k_Page_58thm.jpg
9f4623ea8e8b760793410207eef86bca
6f831ff378ee561661b2807b273103ef599ff659
1116 F20101206_AACUBC candelora_k_Page_07.txt
060478f74f6ca43218ae3fd2c1d33e75
7821c0585e7743c26bbf1c3b97caa75f9ac63937
24252 F20101206_AACUNW candelora_k_Page_23.QC.jpg
14ebf62ec2467d9f66cec6b7b5db51ac
594c1b47c2d96cbe2a394b6dc3130d669f143c5d
25364 F20101206_AACTZD candelora_k_Page_49.jpg
fa7e031b1b55f113daff738205eccaf2
4811022db0f9bb007771a089993cb9b06cb89cf5
23530 F20101206_AACUBD candelora_k_Page_52.QC.jpg
a66f8c66b0bb95fc59c926ec6ffb4dd3
7e7ff88e5c1667edebcb952cad2d06d01c95108e
F20101206_AACUGA candelora_k_Page_20.tif
c70d0e8ebb4e5799c8bd329e5c7ed259
18a6915d4f15f6030d75865a69aeb3d5478543b1
20267 F20101206_AACUIZ candelora_k_Page_55.pro
3171ce1793389106c931627e447f3ba2
cbf8925dcebeb8c4988ea2b34f58657c562e93ab
25845 F20101206_AACUNX candelora_k_Page_24.QC.jpg
ce181b880da143ae248c21ce32371c7e
66800899b3ddd973abfacf72d435eb4c2cfd5bc6
8291 F20101206_AACTZE candelora_k_Page_58.QC.jpg
6366f22cf94c9374a45653b53f1d6529
b3b147f08069022ee5bcc92b69ff0473a09a6660
F20101206_AACUBE candelora_k_Page_54.tif
a09dc592c6054d7ede3fec1e87178467
475e042044d0386b627c3204bfa6c8cb79fb4fa5
F20101206_AACUGB candelora_k_Page_22.tif
6934f99bbabb09b8faf89e9d30f19fc7
444e19c2b1843dcb20c5ab03a86bf2d35f52b21b
7040 F20101206_AACUNY candelora_k_Page_24thm.jpg
91307d474663c26bc69533be363f1aed
9c564b0fda57640859e5c5a427d68379e91c1084
10491 F20101206_AACUBF candelora_k_Page_45.QC.jpg
48d422b8f0baf45db7533840c48abc31
73058e6dfa64ad6deb535d7ea07ac399bf636c1c
2138 F20101206_AACULA candelora_k_Page_60.txt
0654d28b02cdefecb45e18ed2e19bb75
3ab1bc3c0d518c4725b656e1dd55d22ad36bcc4a
F20101206_AACUGC candelora_k_Page_23.tif
da9de2db5662fae43db5ef67ad9599b0
d94eef8ea012a633278ddfd5f036b237cd8b47fa
F20101206_AACTZF candelora_k_Page_38.tif
d1b182e70e11100744f867644408b728
38dffef9857c1fb24e58ddd2d2dffeba50fe1904
5927 F20101206_AACUNZ candelora_k_Page_25.QC.jpg
d0635115129526a02553db143ca8c4f6
dba9d38a81dc69d346df47639c46cd619bf5fbd6
F20101206_AACUBG candelora_k_Page_35.tif
80b740fb87440d9c9debc6f0f2694990
c65e719ef772f32bcb05daba1bf20c3b3e7cfd48
2195 F20101206_AACULB candelora_k_Page_61.txt
eba6cc2f6d19899e97a7af6bd1e7abbb
4d9c03fe958f2573b80f925660f0bb1cb5ffa0a8
F20101206_AACUGD candelora_k_Page_24.tif
0752412523982a0fd53ec0310a129dc8
b707b8b9941d307f8f8e1c4bbc1a3e4cdd043c36
F20101206_AACTZG candelora_k_Page_66.tif
1837eed59793c297fa5955ada35064b4
7921419d568a10dc120bc666fcaa84ef35481aa8
50744 F20101206_AACUBH candelora_k_Page_16.pro
4bd1f3ed9db8352cdaf45d88237e0af5
0db14e88208d2228a3202d69a0d7d463adcfc3b9
2609 F20101206_AACULC candelora_k_Page_62.txt
11a5253243a093ff09705b3f609f7799
1e6116cbd8f2e1f3c68ac84d924c13317719bbc9
F20101206_AACUGE candelora_k_Page_25.tif
3ac21d34d7464e9f08aa0e0a7ef7ee0b
8eb1ef5ce3bf4d0b3acca12defeaf8a5c12f1ae1
30383 F20101206_AACTZH candelora_k_Page_26.pro
0641292d6a6f798c02a76a7e93bf9eb9
67664b7a982162c9452195ed1ca5950dd8b9a3f9
36563 F20101206_AACUBI candelora_k_Page_06.jpg
927a2b0acc5d28a74050067500a92bd2
df466d814fe321a5462f726513fe30661b8a3822
2889 F20101206_AACULD candelora_k_Page_63.txt
cfd5617dd02cde26536c26f798e5090c
b5a5aa153ad13aaf9e64b7a0c2b367ff4a9731d7
8423998 F20101206_AACUGF candelora_k_Page_26.tif
3845553cc709799ea7dd12dffa657808
6ac6f6d23e0a81a5b80fedd15a7ff872bfbdec36
54573 F20101206_AACTZI candelora_k_Page_32.pro
9d04a8c2efac9c8e56135a80b111d997
2fdac63bd48ae8023b7db96340e2772fde95a66f
79190 F20101206_AACUBJ UFE0021384_00001.mets
b5771cc478e2164ceafe9cf0e1783b18
e124409c9bfc9b88addca19270b3468d70021f21
F20101206_AACUGG candelora_k_Page_27.tif
f69813cf232af28ee836752894020db1
42a3be42a513aea955039ec7b8ef5570b18c55a9
119032 F20101206_AACTZJ candelora_k_Page_24.jp2
6d4797f6f23c137c5a63bfd048f73d1b
6b362f83a1207d2aeb3cfa08795a10dd2efba19f
2482 F20101206_AACULE candelora_k_Page_64.txt
6b44ea17d205fc148b944312425f575e
767d94d6a04ad20bdc7946309613917a0bf283a8
F20101206_AACUGH candelora_k_Page_28.tif
59143b90d98c32b7a1979f1cd7afee75
ed7814bad06d3e8c78f7515fc6c7d56f9a0f773c
50286 F20101206_AACTZK candelora_k_Page_31.pro
ea45832097d85505b64e76c4f7514444
4d03857d1181c921945e3c13a6cab25f2a61e747
2499 F20101206_AACULF candelora_k_Page_65.txt
7025dbc82197fd5bcda27779cddf7ca6
31378c9391a6c105da658f0ca7d17a40dc9bedae
F20101206_AACUGI candelora_k_Page_29.tif
d135c21bc3b3ffb15f8b285e50fd75e7
11702bb1f6a34d8e7b51e09cebbe0d0372f386fe
108912 F20101206_AACTZL candelora_k_Page_23.jp2
81cfe40ea33af65edc37534db6349701
46e47ac494c844c610426afcc91db9826a612182
1204 F20101206_AACULG candelora_k_Page_66.txt
6a6994dd32c9f6d2ce1f06e1b71fc4ec
f707ec210b9d1034a14ea5404fbae1b9959430fa
F20101206_AACUGJ candelora_k_Page_31.tif
c78afa7f376184cb5c25ebc331cbd2ba
334dda5284c33f5771a467245114ae154516793c
930143 F20101206_AACTZM candelora_k_Page_06.jp2
ecdd3ade07b472aed543407355838766
a4617d82c1a81e41abd443b14a9b14a2d07a7b68
22361 F20101206_AACUBM candelora_k_Page_01.jpg
478b89c7a12f0d3cca0ddd98f0fdd352
a04dd73997bf440923e14110ff27863a125e7087
2306 F20101206_AACULH candelora_k_Page_01thm.jpg
ef923bb4864f0d26a8dd85b3edc92ea0
794e1d9fb21923249a093396daaf1a47ed3925fe
F20101206_AACUGK candelora_k_Page_32.tif
c87632253e1e8798b1e32cfb86e897b2
e5bb7e90b30d4f19fa74ec515785ed9cc19e1e17
52497 F20101206_AACTZN candelora_k_Page_53.pro
16107bdb5d2814d430c5a06f01017998
39193c8579324a702ddc19af0bc1c5a2fb5d64de
12974 F20101206_AACUBN candelora_k_Page_03.jpg
360412eb33e6dbe577923097df54c28c
cdd8f01e92652101a476078a0f16dc36b8ed1501
707463 F20101206_AACULI candelora_k.pdf
b2130e9c2e30e416f7cef0dc09af1229
c1c80a82ba307f7e7fc19eb09fa76232cfbedf4f
F20101206_AACUGL candelora_k_Page_33.tif
a173b3b17d5084c986e3cdaa4e378417
b810232e5d23bf87a3fc2a7b48f5d05c84ef607c
22759 F20101206_AACTZO candelora_k_Page_20.QC.jpg
866d3b09b718920eee1edb9c53df3f7c
f5ef2fd2ea6e60be9998a94787acbc32a4eff125
76237 F20101206_AACUBO candelora_k_Page_04.jpg
7ed7a10417bbb8bdd59cb7fa528fd220
bc565330e9109eeff479e2a77058788b10484566
7095 F20101206_AACULJ candelora_k_Page_13thm.jpg
f2dcdcb2a49b531595d69a604bd570ee
0ddf9ab4474b7140b34e92f0e8247b1419ef7759
F20101206_AACUGM candelora_k_Page_34.tif
47c5aa43854e0409f69cc94fa90472c2
9541cf4b4187c611be019f7448f82ffa41452548
6971 F20101206_AACTZP candelora_k_Page_38thm.jpg
bfb247b7b07ac81996bc4dad959ef254
eef500fbf75b1a23793719b815b522d9b3380107
51945 F20101206_AACUBP candelora_k_Page_08.jpg
5825bf84ce5635e3d938a71e115a21aa
ff9c35113d5bb29c7508202edd7553b78bc90ed3
26759 F20101206_AACULK candelora_k_Page_14.QC.jpg
6045f01964d5822c9f1489212cbdc5fa
7009255eb88ca8bda31f9057fcbee204693330c3
F20101206_AACUGN candelora_k_Page_36.tif
f3bfde80ba746029df85de8eb25101d4
f28a17cd4c624ae9664ed551706718cd19d48d09
15815 F20101206_AACTZQ candelora_k_Page_08.QC.jpg
f07120007bbee8aa26b9ad989a6c13bc
aa069f74b60fd2d5fa390c4de47ac66f3b450982
70492 F20101206_AACUBQ candelora_k_Page_09.jpg
086c2b31580317162ba6c94d0068e475
409852010a51b2f668c7c3cf4474bdd0e092ceab
6312 F20101206_AACULL candelora_k_Page_17thm.jpg
11455ac92583c11f31cc048ab4439d58
828d167fa98d273c07cd947c538760ea1cf81ca4
F20101206_AACUGO candelora_k_Page_37.tif
877d0e8745e33af17a77d5eeaddf90dc
69076e13852625f9a443cd3d15b5b9bd515af314
1989 F20101206_AACTZR candelora_k_Page_26.txt
d6a92637c8908008d3d1afa4351d47e2
214f024daec0994ddb89163474c37679d27fe1a9
70274 F20101206_AACUBR candelora_k_Page_10.jpg
587868a25aecc81ae22384714dc0e9a3
d5a1587806fa8cc2ed6e9ef6ee667a3ca7d79fc7
6892 F20101206_AACULM candelora_k_Page_35thm.jpg
fab042d4f7bbf844260df0f72f37ca07
f88d58326b298a4910be300cc2948ef0f5e7e577
F20101206_AACUGP candelora_k_Page_39.tif
cb5beeba90b9bd4f915b9a1008d9ff2f
8a573f568d920bb285b231020f377ca66bafcf48
756308 F20101206_AACTZS candelora_k_Page_28.jp2
cba94315a3b62614830b1e8a00519d35
ad01262ead48eca9b46500fd1fcfa11d2fee0702
78980 F20101206_AACUBS candelora_k_Page_11.jpg
17146cb3960ed714a84e2a4b19cd2309
5916720f2c63c765c64bde88d6fe66e3137e629c
26098 F20101206_AACULN candelora_k_Page_19.QC.jpg
1dbedd664be389c6b85088cc137f2c4a
6eee739f6e08443ee61ca582b3be7ff87b0475da
F20101206_AACUGQ candelora_k_Page_40.tif
67a58ff522879cc16abc5102c4b01815
39b867888bc1604f5042af9821a1b795d1e1b988
77994 F20101206_AACUBT candelora_k_Page_12.jpg
b4faa822a14ceb0c3e1b51b5533caa70
a12d78e310eec3d2a21f271afb518736d6872783
6821 F20101206_AACULO candelora_k_Page_60thm.jpg
8f553b38090f9b15951b41182b435eae
659e78698fb6eb7abc9894faccb1074d1263bcee
F20101206_AACUGR candelora_k_Page_41.tif
8353117104b24e4d2373b801e7c1d1f2
954abfb32dc838097e837fe5ff3a7d17378d8240
46703 F20101206_AACTZT candelora_k_Page_27.jpg
0a789124530763fd0cb0d8e4dbaa7629
0713f2087222b08ea5669ad12f3d11844ea64e08
76892 F20101206_AACUBU candelora_k_Page_13.jpg
af641f6564b818730a019aaa1b2cc2d7
7f654a963ca623e6ba62b81602e20bc4b831c690
6543 F20101206_AACULP candelora_k_Page_20thm.jpg
fbcd3171822126964faa678b3a28f391
2c4b380f0699d8367495b819cde53490a36682bc
F20101206_AACUGS candelora_k_Page_42.tif
f804415cb6e08712550eba5c8a151631
fe157f52368fecf99dd53b7d9350c1c0fd8c108d
10052 F20101206_AACTZU candelora_k_Page_02.jpg
ede9273a638f096cec62a3fba2fe6493
d39dee13b40b5a574a5c0bc365e77a567abb3fb4
73772 F20101206_AACUBV candelora_k_Page_16.jpg
182c0853c618033d91af4982ecc324eb
a2951eeba9920ebb2b86f6fa9087c65e3e023822
2038 F20101206_AACULQ candelora_k_Page_25thm.jpg
7988f0193f3e6c012c1823b19aa3c281
a691a81777b093ec1fb3cbc61d26b4971e62d826
F20101206_AACUGT candelora_k_Page_43.tif
62da54fa4ac8d5bbccd280bc82de1fe3
3b66986b63e078e513a007a1fb9967fb6db3cee6
118421 F20101206_AACTZV candelora_k_Page_12.jp2
a319ce39dd64ef93bd4332f1f0ac7759
95c69118dba1e2bb03739be7ecd44ef5d1923c50
69816 F20101206_AACUBW candelora_k_Page_18.jpg
ba7265ab3a548c1ed22b5e963b630090
a1f5597d200058978abf375d29cd61402988ecfc
15430 F20101206_AACULR candelora_k_Page_26.QC.jpg
c8d5da7810f7772eb3336ae834cc26f3
38033fb94676a96402db3565927605fb85d9807d
F20101206_AACUGU candelora_k_Page_46.tif
3ba4ba145ccca3c6baca892945a616e0
a1286c29ca1d6cf5664e56b1a7ef0ac8c7dd9fe8
311 F20101206_AACTZW candelora_k_Page_48.txt
b0b46b570db9ce008a77eb5ae9f669b3
61f2700c4d3a987b076c1ac9629345e4dc3fc8ab
78203 F20101206_AACUBX candelora_k_Page_19.jpg
ae5d0d13c761d9cd7009d699d708438c
a0301e7d845446fd88d6a476217e79e6900391b7
5680 F20101206_AACULS candelora_k_Page_41thm.jpg
15296365e5ebc029ae368bac587ad17a
f7cf4c2808ba241e568f549c7d518fef4102b731
F20101206_AACUGV candelora_k_Page_47.tif
2b61db93f9e0f211f9c8c1d2db818b7f
7af25e34267c9abb1c2767b536383d55fd3f1163
24544 F20101206_AACTZX candelora_k_Page_35.QC.jpg
44229ead31ed6538486b427e5fd4fc8e
aaa173324daf40442aa3149bfe1676db57a553ba
69713 F20101206_AACUBY candelora_k_Page_20.jpg
5f26aeb5bc1a022bc057b4afbe84ed8e
523c466856ca9d3c179f31912e9f47d3bab7d517
22970 F20101206_AACULT candelora_k_Page_17.QC.jpg
aa9ee94f0c62025e73b427b47ec8d261
c9fde857cd3aba0ecd5399f1eb41da1ccf370846
F20101206_AACUGW candelora_k_Page_48.tif
0fda8b317c907e93770546cb86e16b3b
66b1ab13d1e94cedba35307278fd73071d5c1f80
F20101206_AACTZY candelora_k_Page_44.tif
3698bccab4174a7f5e7433598b5fd978
5cd1baffa848cf9e4d359e3999a94ea1f2048412
78160 F20101206_AACUBZ candelora_k_Page_21.jpg
a63df8420466ecb76cfcec7f5164bdd1
6c8e6b7277c5eabd666bcaa7a21506aa78e3c82d
6924 F20101206_AACULU candelora_k_Page_64thm.jpg
492d9429f57f55348b623c02f8bbb72b
7339012c92db62a181daf683ab3a4b5489b45067
F20101206_AACUGX candelora_k_Page_49.tif
f7a6895701ceaa9e22c20c8ce65de323
0ac2098e5cb45809ed3abc6686051a1ae3142d27
25832 F20101206_AACTZZ candelora_k_Page_36.QC.jpg
ae46dc240ce726e28baf83ef5c7ad579
96968a7ac205d589b4364b9d25d8b68e2587a918
F20101206_AACUGY candelora_k_Page_50.tif
9f5644fcab08aef26aac3ab0fd44451f
11c02b460416676c0a8bc26c7809305b302efa2c
4202 F20101206_AACULV candelora_k_Page_44thm.jpg
77890e8318fedf45b83ae3a99a41a386
956667f09e497fa664fdeb9e296516a17fda7908
116052 F20101206_AACUEA candelora_k_Page_21.jp2
619b50b3e5dd7de4bc061313506fbd35
e65d32627350b2d900858215711dc3727d7d2c6a
F20101206_AACUGZ candelora_k_Page_51.tif
231405fb95a03b14d10f8200f11dd0be
a87299676cc069c6d47715c02cdfb8deb02c8abb
6766 F20101206_AACULW candelora_k_Page_53thm.jpg
c6220357755a7509bc60dc5982af47e9
65c1e6e8d2bbdacc265e21ef8f7bf9baca59c538
110430 F20101206_AACUEB candelora_k_Page_22.jp2
310e2ea2fba62472f8e01cb74f197582
7877e04ac0fa6f49ec613d6d26001dac94fba14e
4229 F20101206_AACULX candelora_k_Page_47thm.jpg
93f1eceae9fdedfe22859e6ae9cfc3be
2f10197f870a352a9e76ccff32a49fd6f5cb55b8
845519 F20101206_AACUEC candelora_k_Page_27.jp2
5a29c27339b1b17d5a734aeee5f19b61
57217be259c781222e78a4179cfbc129d967e4f2
19788 F20101206_AACUJA candelora_k_Page_56.pro
964c54a7ac18f181b3911e5657f7acc4
5de9543eaa71c185337165d2ec0435f09efc49da
3931 F20101206_AACULY candelora_k_Page_29thm.jpg
f1f952654b1efeadd44cce8b8d8e7e0a
a616d16df7254eff2a39ef9d4b8ce92bf28b9987
1051972 F20101206_AACUED candelora_k_Page_30.jp2
39a00d230b9c497623fee649b4c39580
9fd93edbc672314ab0373173d935f34b8435774e
6120 F20101206_AACUJB candelora_k_Page_58.pro
f6c0ff1ff2ac17420f6afba716a85969
113811b3c3fa24139d1b6d16d76c21a82a2d0a14
6838 F20101206_AACULZ candelora_k_Page_65thm.jpg
e94c99add4fab1bb777aa35c1f8dfa9b
e343900dfcc085a2f2d8c44ef566aa64787f5e33
110087 F20101206_AACUEE candelora_k_Page_31.jp2
2433c49d8fa41da0f6c3b4ff214dfd9e
4977182e0e8d768c77a03c58e1df5b9abdc1ef1f
14473 F20101206_AACUOA candelora_k_Page_27.QC.jpg
4c45eee4859b84ebca0bfccb1e99e39c
b3d314d1f6c2fcbb0b23b34d496fa938742f3c50
117462 F20101206_AACUEF candelora_k_Page_32.jp2
b5b7fbe01fa70c468951e201f68e720b
76618ba30f6f0e03bb08a69984730b84e8d0e518
51508 F20101206_AACUJC candelora_k_Page_59.pro
f4b62bdcea620d8d60bff04846bb5e9d
e253060b42208edf347b8152fc8d723777da5439
3682 F20101206_AACUOB candelora_k_Page_28thm.jpg
5fcea7e833605beb6ba2d7504602bc8f
da155c2c0039c7bd142368f3fb8c113ceeaa87be
1051960 F20101206_AACUEG candelora_k_Page_33.jp2
90e3e763405d4a229521be5b68db0023
2e7aa988e25115416fe559c73c8bd7a347847f72
52702 F20101206_AACUJD candelora_k_Page_60.pro
0cd9862cccdf78abae9ea64d745ddac9
e74bb1465a94f93c5243263323611a3147aba138
11040 F20101206_AACUOC candelora_k_Page_29.QC.jpg
9af27a53342efcaf6b6c1a625816024b
49e25ebd8d77bfd1406e3f31f3c4087f2907c294
110086 F20101206_AACUEH candelora_k_Page_35.jp2
f5fbe70ebe229d8f4adabcd54fbd9c44
67622bf83505cd328a05a895f4e2884a3c453b84
54878 F20101206_AACUJE candelora_k_Page_61.pro
352b0138ce95af12ca8864c6e13a91ef
4ad4280bd04f2e1bd9ad12d9a8d38daeaf7da4a6
24687 F20101206_AACUOD candelora_k_Page_31.QC.jpg
ea3c105d0e11a480dcdaa2944691cfaa
a888ac28126e0d89e8203137374b8dc707b56043
64334 F20101206_AACUJF candelora_k_Page_62.pro
7cd111cbc5af0c5d4db7ebbbaebf57e9
97c28b01ce077f33defb1f609ae3781d9b827fda
117848 F20101206_AACUEI candelora_k_Page_36.jp2
4c62b43263d61ea500ddcca4fe795089
d17893afcb35a331c953a39c044995b4200701f6
25440 F20101206_AACUOE candelora_k_Page_32.QC.jpg
60afdeee91da89e3eba281c1cf844410
7db37838a60afcc78f822088fe23af1194314514
5664 F20101206_AACTXM candelora_k_Page_43thm.jpg
74533e452f17d16d5cae919faca103ee
82f22341b3280d7da3f48be5a803edda1f802caa
71439 F20101206_AACUJG candelora_k_Page_63.pro
dac5798f3891155306e02310b4e72ae7
74c52487ad0291623cfc90aaff018fe0db78a096
112642 F20101206_AACUEJ candelora_k_Page_37.jp2
ab8c5624d6af31da7de4311bf1833724
9326b832717e7afc1b9e6fb30e55dc3a85679d9a
26474 F20101206_AACUOF candelora_k_Page_33.QC.jpg
257f90bda7f6dfff0bb40807c5fecfe2
fdac0ecee7baa0ee2c0f1e06c7642d6c221efc43
3945 F20101206_AACTXN candelora_k_Page_57thm.jpg
8f35177c1f82b9c590eb250b16e78752
638ca885d57fec4e251807f26c043aac3276fab9
61337 F20101206_AACUJH candelora_k_Page_65.pro
a73b9432cb50bbe11aef22945fd4e71f
8915b541b76571a988e41681775a7f20604adf56
119263 F20101206_AACUEK candelora_k_Page_38.jp2
796f36fc77864296c58fa001ba3df802
177c631ef21a3c796a5cd21774f7f6d86f273c3d
7154 F20101206_AACUOG candelora_k_Page_33thm.jpg
20537e65422b8ff7f3338cac570a06b3
14a16c4569d2d5a7ed4d17a137db4b7388f62a18
1988 F20101206_AACTXO candelora_k_Page_17.txt
081c56b2814107976633fb8d8e31783e
2bf3281f33942b2be8c8f7a26e672df6aae26d78
490 F20101206_AACUJI candelora_k_Page_01.txt
6a49b0117dda213709e8020fb29a184e
112da07c01e4f28cf97f9e8094e94a58d1b0d227
97568 F20101206_AACUEL candelora_k_Page_39.jp2
cd3fb6684c567b015123f6261946aeb2
d4721b7d6507940b9547616ef3389aed189fb1a5
105365 F20101206_AACTXP candelora_k_Page_09.jp2
0a2c3b972fdac0f1924fe273b5a6dc3f
e5d828fd0a683de23431191ed419fd5132844d41
100 F20101206_AACUJJ candelora_k_Page_02.txt
a730b3889dbdb0765bfdcde82536ba8d
3ced48a91f6c4f17ece9a15a1b100d101ef5f946
114853 F20101206_AACUEM candelora_k_Page_40.jp2
b11afc3d55720a56c63e239e0974c1c5
c69adebc8abc6dd6693204f280203f5b7de07711
25630 F20101206_AACUOH candelora_k_Page_34.QC.jpg
69a75ef8aadac6813a0d9dc9ed2b5a7e
d23bc3c5833b632ee70773170b99831a25142eff
322937 F20101206_AACTXQ candelora_k_Page_46.jp2
f8d39eb4d24475a8fa3283095109bd15
8a33cc739abedf9892293b08cd22a1a3765cd24d
210 F20101206_AACUJK candelora_k_Page_03.txt
4f8085fa2cfd6ee8ee9afb4da4469c6b
14e0ba44862d014d726702e89faffc786ab0fa9b
93239 F20101206_AACUEN candelora_k_Page_41.jp2
492fbf129e96ea5ccc01f739ad143084
d10b612c35245493cc3fdbda5976b164ceb8e90b
6827 F20101206_AACUOI candelora_k_Page_34thm.jpg
a6d5983de37f9898eee34da46d8761ad
8f0a3791259694b62a706b2be10537a0a2ba1ffb
2071 F20101206_AACUJL candelora_k_Page_04.txt
8af294d0e55924f1b11957dae8f8a272
5ae345e555aefbe63454bdc99f76756038e88fc3
108678 F20101206_AACUEO candelora_k_Page_42.jp2
15a34ab2284c3298e4ad9c5c780eafea
3dbd5edc195f82f7b44a32bc6252e1336fa3af41
F20101206_AACUOJ candelora_k_Page_36thm.jpg
900f420f9021a3050ae2c082f47241e7
2e194279d6f6fae841d766c5f1248be9cdbd6212
24090 F20101206_AACTXR candelora_k_Page_37.QC.jpg
acaf206db8e56d1f85ebbb91faaad8b2
41bc59e6f35b49fba29b600ce1e8888b5118f3c5
3108 F20101206_AACUJM candelora_k_Page_05.txt
7a398a945e7bb043312333bd1288bd86
7b3a00551e81e5d73c4dd1691f7f3eb5c3e02669
53185 F20101206_AACUEP candelora_k_Page_44.jp2
105b50f23693d820f56d36033a74363c
f20dffd0b4bb766bfef97750571881fb41937e39
26164 F20101206_AACUOK candelora_k_Page_38.QC.jpg
e00987de1cf472099d7fe72d90367f2e
95e704ee333bcab498e5f28865d1654a5b94bf48
79448 F20101206_AACTXS candelora_k_Page_15.jpg
58295688f1801b300f39dac42382606b
a0a55b95d3fb139650c8ee02563d3b2ef98dace1
1194 F20101206_AACUJN candelora_k_Page_06.txt
3800a488045d695d6677df31a4bae791
5fc681547a4c2ff87ac368f1919e0e621d1ff45d
514787 F20101206_AACUEQ candelora_k_Page_45.jp2
508f76d35d6ba9f680cd92ffa2135764
b90ea29923ed45b01cca6d0a7780a58c8a81dd68
21071 F20101206_AACUOL candelora_k_Page_39.QC.jpg
a0e5fcb54451a72074574b6f424588c0
281b909426e48608dfde0571eee027c2665decc7
75311 F20101206_AACTXT candelora_k_Page_59.jpg
fc02a2266741b97bf34d1f851768d75a
0c48a11e141146ed782102ee5ccdbea3d4d86ae1
1401 F20101206_AACUJO candelora_k_Page_08.txt
f078335744d6c8cf23d99c0bae64f892
6f3ad95ab99a618efa7759f3d9af127941f74b1f
165765 F20101206_AACUER candelora_k_Page_48.jp2
e5e07cf2228e3fd69e4cdd3db1b8a363
e4946c5d70cf41eca1233eb8c9b8ab4060d6023e
25294 F20101206_AACUOM candelora_k_Page_40.QC.jpg
8e7e55d07e7013c10c322de8049c480c
771790092040963084393ed90b9bf348a6c47981
54252 F20101206_AACTXU candelora_k_Page_12.pro
b3ca3c75bd2e43db022c115cebf586d1
4dcf2b8c16df1d6ee1359b4745d23d696b667bf2
2087 F20101206_AACUJP candelora_k_Page_09.txt
3a0b945db854ca382c3266dbefac8844
9481a69af47d5b9011bd374eb5c41b481fd1e7ab
233914 F20101206_AACUES candelora_k_Page_49.jp2
3d7444348b557a17a1da39266c9c8af1
2406ba8fb17b20b6c1864f90897dd48b9b4ca2c0
22813 F20101206_AACUON candelora_k_Page_42.QC.jpg
a3ad99ea618830493cf474a665d3d024
99bb34cab7ec32de277d0a76331ae8fd44c5044a
F20101206_AACTXV candelora_k_Page_30.tif
d9be548962d7495834b1a13bf4b830bf
0b697b55d2268461e4a73a0f207ac11ea9d38502
1951 F20101206_AACUJQ candelora_k_Page_10.txt
532c0be8e277b7c9b4a4951148e891d2
52a4e7a4fe36d3fd0cf7438e807feb88af5d2013
110506 F20101206_AACUET candelora_k_Page_50.jp2
4b2def3bb8bd207755c6002871a250f6
8960d1f20574a2f5acada3d6c0101d7a08b59540
20753 F20101206_AACUOO candelora_k_Page_43.QC.jpg
b8dd96d6b16e5f926548be76d43e3fc3
e410f011162d2aeb91df33b13d60a9635a66dab0
8187 F20101206_AACTXW candelora_k_Page_49.QC.jpg
f9e609bf2e1c05bea556eb2444fb6683
110abb6bc832de8f807b1581606ac02ba6e59700
2202 F20101206_AACUJR candelora_k_Page_11.txt
0729e5bcaeca06253948bac9b9886acf
60de07bd8d82260b92d32854110ddfeebff61f8c
108033 F20101206_AACUEU candelora_k_Page_51.jp2
928731ebf713056b011c75e0fcf59c10
aa3e647fe330240083060bca49a241e9cce6eb2c
13463 F20101206_AACUOP candelora_k_Page_44.QC.jpg
6faa6e5cda756f8be6c0fee73345acdf
793ed7219c442276a8b80050eac9f6de6ebb061b
29131 F20101206_AACTXX candelora_k_Page_66.pro
05cac2fa785080fa28290c26e53ba97e
51de24b0cf18d6d46fd96ab3393766880e8bbeb6
F20101206_AACUJS candelora_k_Page_12.txt
2aa321cefb6fb2fbb5370f3940bba2ca
85af2ff428f79a72a43dc320d1c61f9054d6e1e5
109155 F20101206_AACUEV candelora_k_Page_52.jp2
1db9753a5365b7dc61dd125b1eed24d7
a47739527a5911a176e24acabcd8eec49dfacdc1
3351 F20101206_AACUOQ candelora_k_Page_45thm.jpg
987a81f89711d77c57903f4b153303fd
c526d7d67971780cbd3088a3cb824f331b096061
2552 F20101206_AACTXY candelora_k_Page_49thm.jpg
c58a4cc48cf793c531d9156151de51c7
f39b6680abb7ede2475ac0477872e9778cd7872b
F20101206_AACUJT candelora_k_Page_13.txt
f6cc3cb26d473c8d23ca203dbc3802d8
4d59588b5712ea25b9159753f28ee16502252348
112934 F20101206_AACUEW candelora_k_Page_53.jp2
a7c9b8ca1c486cff0aedcf0bb39694c3
66ed6b4beb780f2f46e80d08387d665e6cf69d2f
3256 F20101206_AACUOR candelora_k_Page_46thm.jpg
62975a9cc00ec5352e3ab9930cd40ba4
a49029a110dc2eb7718a1d2c3c5e05c209a5ae56
F20101206_AACTXZ candelora_k_Page_56.tif
3c3365430d25458af79ba3a911a63159
f299cbefd62c66c604be0c32a4cb9918e28060b4
2260 F20101206_AACUJU candelora_k_Page_14.txt
a7de9e5298150596d92802fd2422a224
4ce0fb4059b1309a075390c3a763dc6ab273a90d
113225 F20101206_AACUEX candelora_k_Page_54.jp2
26c39a99d0739427dcf5e7382bdc8256
1cd30fc54a1479b4005a46567aa6e3b585ec6449
13939 F20101206_AACUOS candelora_k_Page_47.QC.jpg
c1d59e649396e7873ae7775a890a20c7
31fe320a5335fc3ff95f0fb551a5c9399c31b386
2226 F20101206_AACUJV candelora_k_Page_15.txt
519cc0cdea47e758285a64c222472e1b
ccb1c5e51cd06de5db88563f6269e995ac3fbdec
44765 F20101206_AACUEY candelora_k_Page_55.jp2
ee9ee6af3d6396a3dcbc53aa11cc9106
f95d96239dea0b6a1a8af9663f14784dda24b4f2
2390 F20101206_AACUOT candelora_k_Page_48thm.jpg
39d2c96fd7b7a533f9b174867a059816
5f39231492495efd517f868fc020909ba2014554
2004 F20101206_AACUJW candelora_k_Page_16.txt
e274518e936d0f491bee9bf38bc686cb
2d4723ca6e42940df42bfc0c7bce071173d466e6
72735 F20101206_AACUCA candelora_k_Page_22.jpg
491d0252dc5b21f932add7a5824ad596
fac691b44149013d08382e47a145665c18984b57
959659 F20101206_AACUEZ candelora_k_Page_56.jp2
993de6453f8df1be5fe320a1c077bccd
44b1e87007fe1cee356a5238904e5ecb3143c60e
24341 F20101206_AACUOU candelora_k_Page_50.QC.jpg
9ec82e0402e55450f5ebdf33066bb609
e5b0d5029cfc22be400b1e1f1ca5226a8a955f39
2000 F20101206_AACUJX candelora_k_Page_18.txt
60f09f83ee0574cd4e6476fb5257d626
06b5980db6b22d13b4f47dbfa7a4ecdeb2c1dd39
71573 F20101206_AACUCB candelora_k_Page_23.jpg
5196402bd0dc727dc888b3140e5c7fea
b51131532c6d4458c63c249bbd54d8876aa6a989
6632 F20101206_AACUOV candelora_k_Page_50thm.jpg
d7775aad80c4fec533f6db91f29921b4
e478e5c5dee047a5ca7c615fe2b68c4cc7e8a78c
2156 F20101206_AACUJY candelora_k_Page_19.txt
f6e647e48f4160d173719f2c0a938a46
d7232a9e73e9e2ff645263705bec72e9c7d984b5
77782 F20101206_AACUCC candelora_k_Page_24.jpg
af1b30ccbbc72c44a84a202d0f5c83b8
1a3d396ad872fc6307b266bdab9cfb758930aa49
23641 F20101206_AACUOW candelora_k_Page_51.QC.jpg
82361ce2dae0e72f52858471f2cd1212
aa55b0f5711b61d0a45624da2c8902320ad0d165
F20101206_AACUHA candelora_k_Page_53.tif
380cb0fc445ffd7765804b14739bb8b6
c2834a57c1e962a62a48747c76f581e711b3c527
1856 F20101206_AACUJZ candelora_k_Page_20.txt
d549606fa643011e68b5cbd4bf6886b1
584922b52b64c1082c9c206a4e99c101ad15fdf0
17112 F20101206_AACUCD candelora_k_Page_25.jpg
396e6745347c3bc24edfbba2f16447fa
3e1f03f1d31f804ab0e94ea31106792adc668712
24459 F20101206_AACUOX candelora_k_Page_53.QC.jpg
4bfa864bd36d7d10ee55e00b83577b3e
369efb9ebce9a13ecb202ce677b27ce03ac6ecf8
F20101206_AACUHB candelora_k_Page_57.tif
8c943eb55d93e5b14913bbbcd018552b
d8be7e8886cb7ffe363bd7cb9c9d4c7cc701fa2e
50562 F20101206_AACUCE candelora_k_Page_26.jpg
5318c3e15d21d17fd9fd320a5af1f63f
87613d4cb7761a0ddd922683e4cef058c2a99d61
25104 F20101206_AACUOY candelora_k_Page_54.QC.jpg
da8050e14b564f773f4c9097b737b5e8
5e9fe9b9424ebee8b47775cff5f9e95f125079e8
F20101206_AACUHC candelora_k_Page_58.tif
3b7b1cff40df0bfea41ce67e6b2f0943
b67d49d83c7d81f6482ee86a27b8a6f86b203f7c
31747 F20101206_AACUCF candelora_k_Page_28.jpg
cd7f6dd6f5956c84943cf7c413f72606
2902eda5a0254c13a13a3bf4f81df0c84bb3ac90
6873 F20101206_AACUMA candelora_k_Page_31thm.jpg
f9c791db61d3125da0b21eedc029b4eb
7a66e6ca1a02dadce5e9d443a6831014370214b2
6691 F20101206_AACUOZ candelora_k_Page_54thm.jpg
812118005eeed2ca073ea52c08788d61
8ccb0eb13324770eed033fb8e5dff5ed8c8c4632
F20101206_AACUHD candelora_k_Page_59.tif
5a4c9b5691a0cbe21efd6074c7f2fd19
3a6f197d0859c22270ba4dd498c705f913dee4ae
83029 F20101206_AACUCG candelora_k_Page_30.jpg
bed4a46eb6e8c889c403895400eacb51
71cb3350d8feff66c2aa28965019d5b997aed783
10122 F20101206_AACUMB candelora_k_Page_06.QC.jpg
7b7f03efac33c2b509b31c90cb7169de
0170f29b610e7746e1829922c9f29e5bb8f6e384
72641 F20101206_AACUCH candelora_k_Page_31.jpg
844e38f43c32e34c70889672e7e58de4
f3b1e9c84ca86ed0f0d787b4665226e20bfa94a9
21042 F20101206_AACUMC candelora_k_Page_41.QC.jpg
8a4186aba9b964c013afe829eb97f6ca
5f62002d7077524ef3187c86e925ba6516931c9a
F20101206_AACUHE candelora_k_Page_60.tif
e402b81b05534b24e343680b721d35b9
ebb46fd44af40eab31eff7c0535a8888f5e074cf
77237 F20101206_AACUCI candelora_k_Page_32.jpg
4142819ac3f899e7bd7ab7f10807c773
17cd30a4af1883dfa0377b907e460c4e84817026
6931 F20101206_AACUMD candelora_k_Page_32thm.jpg
2f13af993c9d7f8699db69889f70326c
2203653e109f62382f7e0c54d28f329aea8a1e5b
F20101206_AACUHF candelora_k_Page_61.tif
ccdf182de57794e92d5fefbbd902f13e
4c864e5e3ac053e65cfcd99105edbcc899076409
82303 F20101206_AACUCJ candelora_k_Page_33.jpg
cadf4c3c98183e4a1b5bb9d2a9557c8d
352b2df34766d1cf3a0528edb704f2e90f5b4989
26026 F20101206_AACUME candelora_k_Page_65.QC.jpg
d41ee238d21bc4b01a77421f4f2cbfed
d2573d463ce9b0f113f9fc975a4c1ade13c277c9
F20101206_AACUHG candelora_k_Page_62.tif
bca0099395728b23ab17aa935674a731
2f63c9131be8d2043ee71889ca0b1f50436b89f9
78037 F20101206_AACUCK candelora_k_Page_34.jpg
0e91ea36494edcee548cd11bd8b7c4e7
82f38570b6bb4e59a5536a6ec0be9b164c64a214
F20101206_AACUHH candelora_k_Page_63.tif
dfc4e67076d512419fb78116f38d0ccb
984e9e2526a81ecc9f583eebc9bc48d272c9361d
72243 F20101206_AACUCL candelora_k_Page_35.jpg
064e41412743174ff559f59d8fb858fa
b39abc176b13d246dee47248d5e4ec1baf22d9e8
7024 F20101206_AACUMF candelora_k_Page_12thm.jpg
49fa10f9c9589c8e94d6cdb717b92e92
96e8ae794010ec7f8a2e0a152040f0e6021658f0
F20101206_AACUHI candelora_k_Page_65.tif
efc253788d5724ccb4e1f159b851cd78
caa35dc251c6a41833d607769c61f773e160f74d
78354 F20101206_AACUCM candelora_k_Page_36.jpg
b50630aae170978b679e4cd0f01e00f4
3257c2fc96c5e6536a221baf580d1b319b87aca1
12206 F20101206_AACUMG candelora_k_Page_07.QC.jpg
eb4d2a8a32fdb03d5b0bcc91d2da2686
892726012ecf12436156be766044da54445c8ed3
8076 F20101206_AACUHJ candelora_k_Page_01.pro
c937eabe3a657e42b5f5bece4143a086
969b7b92ca7e03c7046c149a86d85526835e6615
74712 F20101206_AACUCN candelora_k_Page_37.jpg
cd8d276e7f1a9e912f4726388cdb4948
941a06703a4846edf15454c8f0a2f6ddbc12036c
24646 F20101206_AACUMH candelora_k_Page_04.QC.jpg
e48d6758fe58fc18a8511e4a93d749b1
aa7eb4fa2d16877f59ec1565022bddc73799e643
988 F20101206_AACUHK candelora_k_Page_02.pro
cf2aed8ef34b5cdf61556db73a408941
0286c3b0912bcb3d3959024e437b27a67aa93288
79304 F20101206_AACUCO candelora_k_Page_38.jpg
09538b60c1dbea999859f80b879039b7
4511da3ec79d2a4e585896c6d8156c3d702a0015
5104 F20101206_AACUMI candelora_k_Page_56thm.jpg
b5a097c496e398e7934b3c139b5b96b6
350abbf399fd92a64c2ee24dc1a16a8fc707119a
51795 F20101206_AACUHL candelora_k_Page_04.pro
3c6ba010c3e264bb8c1ddb784e2ce899
f1de373c4b313b38e781249d5791a6e3f4b8fe8b
63280 F20101206_AACUCP candelora_k_Page_39.jpg
a4f3e980d29202f2dcf20d0573bd0a30
97c20334279f4c813f8bcd18bf09e3f98377a6d1
5914 F20101206_AACUMJ candelora_k_Page_39thm.jpg
b7800a773c96229f8af82eb2aec75c16
3e77ddebb76801ff935410d5a08dc25d4c077bfc
70147 F20101206_AACUHM candelora_k_Page_05.pro
dae88bc9fa683c859c404e2e368993c7
5dce5c6cbca00177f955f17f5beeba92637714b2
76981 F20101206_AACUCQ candelora_k_Page_40.jpg
9e93a7f2e44573834465449390ae1d95
b41d5f9c960ae01b4a72652aeef6fa45e436181d
4287 F20101206_AACUMK candelora_k_Page_27thm.jpg
57d6e6384d6f3f61be9c5ba23ea18c3f
9ec4ad32516e2f04b1164198a771dcb891c13765
28286 F20101206_AACUHN candelora_k_Page_06.pro
067daeac703fa41531d727bc1b3b1b94
f2502186017921459f2b41a9e7298f64a409817e
63045 F20101206_AACUCR candelora_k_Page_41.jpg
50ab8ff42c9c6431fe8e1a732c930dd8
20d003c8a0bddda7738fc389d6c1045b401ab410
F20101206_AACUML candelora_k_Page_12.QC.jpg
9697509ec35dc2fb299d964bfd43ca5b
cd724855de54184511cf8483d42ad85e14cd28bd
33681 F20101206_AACUHO candelora_k_Page_08.pro
94ec840cc9c5edb4943fef0e706b1c92
9f39716a1af47eb6fc42a1dde408f389a91ec10d
71852 F20101206_AACUCS candelora_k_Page_42.jpg
12b4462ca93aeb98a000bee465241de7
a76bf53fd9bc339f8cb25d20c36effa33c92570b
25656 F20101206_AACUMM candelora_k_Page_11.QC.jpg
061d9d221065b002ced2477dc6f0ff90
11974ffa5077cb8fd70239c87ab65ae53d0430d0
47625 F20101206_AACUHP candelora_k_Page_09.pro
6a139539095c86f69800175389510d41
56ee39143ae898eb9948df46d00c46e3d37c5dea
68574 F20101206_AACUCT candelora_k_Page_43.jpg
72833fbf61a23c4495da6245852605e1
819ee21c1188f886b4396ed4667427509aaa6010
6702 F20101206_AACUMN candelora_k_Page_23thm.jpg
1ca49759b8c4ad1bbacab44c8bf2de1e
8a27bc423297beee47e0c5a3edb71485a6c50352
49315 F20101206_AACUHQ candelora_k_Page_10.pro
39e26634a825304cc71b6540ee7adb2b
c378d76c238b36e4e1008c4c2bed4eab5dfde70b
45650 F20101206_AACUCU candelora_k_Page_44.jpg
8a1747dcb5b9393991f47a669800cee9
d8cd8a07e46fa8d705ebf529286244519d376a8a
28945 F20101206_AACUMO candelora_k_Page_63.QC.jpg
e77a5aeaba6ea691cc1d9041a572a3e0
cdcc3630ca39217b3886889e4951bfc1e66ce902
53946 F20101206_AACUHR candelora_k_Page_11.pro
3ea47ce3c24e4b184340137e88c4d636
3bb3046d1083f6d211dfb8ba2dc1bbc9ac85aa9a
33796 F20101206_AACUCV candelora_k_Page_45.jpg
34b9457a474aa90ed1b9f02a653dda16
a8f81d495ffd39a76ce3b944bd59b64c36fed2db
6799 F20101206_AACUMP candelora_k_Page_48.QC.jpg
f2b704f7294a3429968928e291616ff9
bafb03cb98bb09b5b87ad7e821678e9767715314
55151 F20101206_AACUHS candelora_k_Page_13.pro
f59e67212ad0b8432d08ff23e26f2e4a
83643b46c3df5c7141870666e215397c44136f52