Skip directly to search Skip directly to A to Z list Skip directly to page options Skip directly to site content

Volume 14, Number 12—December 2008

Research

Sentinel-based Surveillance of Coyotes to Detect Bovine Tuberculosis, Michigan

Kurt C. VerCauterenComments to Author , Todd C. Atwood, Thomas J. DeLiberto, Holly J. Smith, Justin S. Stevenson, Bruce V. Thomsen, Thomas Gidlewski, and Janet Payeur
Author affiliations: US Department of Agriculture–Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA–APHIS) Wildlife Services, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA (K.C. VerCauteren, T.C. Atwood, T.J. DeLiberto, H.J. Smith, J.S. Stevenson); USDA-APHIS Veterinary Services Laboratories, Ames, Iowa, USA (B.V. Thomsen, T. Gidlewski, J. Payeur);

Main Article

Figure 2

Percent prevalence of Mycobacterium bovis–positive coyotes (Canis latrans) and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in Montmorency, Alpena, Alcona, and Oscoda Counties, Michigan, 2003–2005. Prevalence estimates for white-tailed deer are expressed as a mean calculated from discrete sampling periods conducted in 2003, 2004, and 2005. Error bars for coyote estimates represent the standard error of the mean calculated across townships for each county. Estimates of M. bovis prevalence for white-tailed deer were not available for individual townships; standard errors were not calculated for counties.

Figure 2. Percent prevalence of Mycobacterium bovis–positive coyotes (Canis latrans) and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in Montmorency, Alpena, Alcona, and Oscoda Counties, Michigan, 2003–2005. Prevalence estimates for white-tailed deer are expressed as a mean calculated from discrete sampling periods conducted in 2003, 2004, and 2005. Error bars for coyote estimates represent the standard error of the mean calculated across townships for each county. Estimates of M. bovis prevalence for white-tailed deer were not available for individual townships; standard errors were not calculated for counties.

Main Article

TOP