Skip to main content
Emerging Infectious Diseases logoLink to Emerging Infectious Diseases
. 2008 Jan;14(1):84–87. doi: 10.3201/eid1401.061562

Wild Bird Influenza Survey, Canada, 2005

E Jane Parmley *,†,, Nathalie Bastien , Timothy F Booth , Victoria Bowes §, Peter A Buck , Andre Breault #, Dale Caswell **, Pierre-Yves Daoust ††,‡‡, J Chris Davies §§, Seyyed Mehdy Elahi ¶¶, Madeleine Fortin ##, Fred Kibenge ††, Robin King ***, Yan Li , Norman North †††, Davor Ojkic ‡‡‡, John Pasick §§§, Sydney Paul Pryor ¶¶¶, John Robinson §, Jean Rodrigue ###, Hugh Whitney ****, Patrick Zimmer ††††, Frederick A Leighton ††††
PMCID: PMC2600159  PMID: 18258085

Abstract

Of 4,268 wild ducks sampled in Canada in 2005, real-time reverse transcriptase–PCR detected influenza A matrix protein (M1) gene sequence in 37% and H5 gene sequence in 5%. Mallards accounted for 61% of samples, 73% of M1-positive ducks, and 90% of H5-positive ducks. Ducks hatched in 2005 accounted for 80% of the sample.

Keywords: Avian influenza, birds, Canada, surveys, ducks, PCR, surveillance, dispatch


To provide baseline information about the strains and distribution of influenza viruses in Canadian wild ducks and to respond to the emergence of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) type H5N1 in Asia, Europe, and Africa, Canada’s Interagency Wild Bird Influenza Survey was initiated in July 2005. The goals of the survey were to identify avian influenza viruses in wild ducks in Canada and to detect HPAI strains early (1). We report the results of real-time reverse transcriptase–PCR (RRT-PCR) analysis.

The Study

Single cloacal swabs were collected from apparently healthy ducks at 56 sites within 6 geographic regions: British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Québec, and the Atlantic provinces (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador) (Figure). The target number of samples for each region was 800: 500 from mallard ducks (Anas platyrhynchos) and 300 from other duck species. Ducks were trapped and handled as part of annual duck banding carried out by the Canadian Wildlife Service and its associates. They were either caught in baited traps or netted from air boats. In all regions, duck banders were asked to preferentially sample birds hatched in 2005 to maximize virus detection within the sample (24).

Figure.

Figure

Live bird survey sample site locations.

Swabs were immediately placed in virus transport medium, refrigerated for up to 3 days, and then frozen at <–20°C until tested. The transport medium comprised Hanks balanced salt solution supplemented with 10% glycerol, 200 U/mL penicillin, 200 μg/mL streptomycin, 100 U/mL polymyxin B sulfate, 250 μg/mL gentamicin, and 50 U/mL nystatin.

All samples were tested at regional veterinary diagnostic laboratories within Canada's Influenza Virus Laboratory Network by RRT-PCR, which targets a conserved region of the M1 gene within influenza A segment 7. If the M1 gene sequence was detected, RRT-PCR for H5 and H7 hemagglutinin gene segments was performed. All laboratories followed uniform procedures (5) with positive and negative controls, and quality assurance was provided by the National Centre for Foreign Animal Disease (Canadian Food Inspection Agency).

All field and laboratory data were entered directly into a national database developed and maintained by the Canadian Cooperative Wildlife Health Centre. Duplicate records and any sample records missing RRT-PCR results or field collection data (species, age, sex, location) were removed from this analysis. Data were exported to Microsoft Excel 2003 (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA, USA) and prepared for analysis. Statistical analysis was performed with Epi-Info version 3.3.2 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA) and SAS version 9.1 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). Maps were generated in ArcGIS 9.0–ArcMap version 9.1 (ESRI, Redlands, CA, USA).

To assess differences in M1 and H5 virus detection by age class and species, main effects logistic regression models were constructed by using a manual stepwise procedure. Age class, species, sampling area, and sex were included in the model. Age class was categorized into 2005 hatch-year birds and birds from another hatch year. Species was categorized into mallard (mallard and mallard–American black duck [A. rubripes] hybrids), other dabbling duck species, diving ducks, and other tribes (Table 1). All variables were assessed for potential confounding; variables that changed estimates by >20% were left in the main effects models as confounders (6).

Table 1. Duck species sampled in 2005 and RRT-PCR results, Canada*.

Common name Taxonomic name No. sampled No. M1-positive (%) No. H5-positive (%)
Mallard† Anas platyrhynchos 2,600 1148 (44) 187 (7)
American black duck† A. rubripes 293 99 (34) 2 (1%)
American wigeon† A. americana 101 33 (33) 0
Blue-winged teal† A. discors 431 105 (24) 2
Cinnamon teal† A. cyanoptera 4 1 (25) 0
Gadwall† A. strepera 36 1 (3) 0
Green-winged teal† A. crecca 224 52 (23) 5 (2)
Northern pintail† A. acuta 131 26 (20) 4 (3)
Northern shoveler† A. clypeata 4 0 0
Wood duck‡ Aix sponsa 104 71 (68) 2 (2)
Common goldeneye§ Bucephala clangula 18 2 (11) 0
Canvasback§ Aythya valisineria 19 0 0
Hooded merganser§ Lophodytes cucullatus 26 8 (31) 0
Lesser scaup§ Aythya affinis 1 0 0
Redhead§ Aythya americana 223 18 (8) 6 (3)
Ring-necked duck§ Aythya collaris 51 8 (16) 0
Ruddy duck¶ Oxyura jamaicensis 2 0 0

*RRT-PCR, real-time reverse transcriptase–PCR.
†Dabbling duck (Tribe Anatini).
‡Perching duck (Tribe Cairinini).
§Diving duck (Tribe Aythini and Tribe Mergini).
¶Ruddy duck (Tribe Oxyurini).

Conclusions

A total of 4,268 valid sample records were available for this analysis; 37% (1,572) of ducks were M1-positive and 5% (208) were H5-positive by RRT-PCR. No samples tested positive for the H7 gene sequence. Sampled areas varied considerably in the proportion of M1-positive samples, ranging from 63% (348/556) in southern Quebec to 9% (22/254) in southern Alberta (Table 2). Three percent (138) of samples were collected in July, 83% in August (3,539), 11% (454) in September, 1% (59) in October, none in November, and 2% (73) in December. Of all samples, 80% (3,401/4,268) were collected from ducks hatched in 2005. Hatch-year ducks accounted for 88% (1,388/1,572) of M1-positive and 99% (205/208) of H5-positive samples. Of all ducks sampled, 90% (3,824/4,268) were dabbling ducks (tribe Anatini) (Table 1). Mallards (including mallard–American black duck hybrids) accounted for 61% (2,600/4,268) of all ducks sampled, 73% (1,148/1,572) of all M1-positive samples, and 90% (187/208) of all H5-positive samples. The duck species with the highest proportion of M1-positive samples was the wood duck (Aix sponsa) (68%, 71/104).

Table 2. Sample sizes and RRT-PCR results for each sampling area included in the 2005 wild duck survey for influenza A viruses, Canada*.

Region/area (no. sites sampled) No. valid samples No. M1 RRT-PCR positive (%) No. H5 RRT-PCR positive (%)†
British Columbia interior (2)
640
351 (55)
161 (25)
Alberta
Northern (6) 260 30 (12) 0
Central (1) 262 25 (10) 0
Southern (2)
254
22 (9)
0
Manitoba
Western (1) 175 21 (12) 0
Central (1) 174 25 (10) 3 (2)
Eastern (1)
175
48 (27)
1 (1)
Ontario
Southwestern (3) 269 135 (50) 3 (1)
Southcentral (2) 23 11 (49) 1 (4)
Central (1) 48 24 (50) 0
Eastern (2) 144 103 (72) 3 (2)
Northern (3)
284
66 (23)
2 (1)
Québec
Southern (5) 556 348 (63) 28 (5)
Eastern (8)
221
32 (14)
0
Atlantic provinces‡
Northern New Brunswick (1) 15 6 (40) 0
Central New Brunswick (2) 20 9 (20) 0
New Brunswick–Nova Scotia border (10) 646 290 (45) 6 (1)
Prince Edward Island (4) 21 13 (62) 0
Newfoundland and Labrador (1)
73
8 (11)
0
Total 4,268§ 1,572 (37) 208 (5)

*RRT-PCR, real-time reverse transcriptase–PCR.
†All M1-positive samples were subsequently tested for H5.
‡New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador.
§The sampling area of 8 ducks was not recorded (3 from Alberta, 1 from Ontario, 4 from Québec).

Age, area sampled, and species were included in the final logistic regression model for M1 RRT-PCR test results. Age, sex, and species were included in the final model for H5 RRT-PCR results. Mallards were more likely to be M1-positive than other dabbling ducks or diving ducks but not more likely to be M1-positive than other duck tribes (Cairinini and Oxyurini). Mallards were more likely to be H5-positive than other dabbling ducks, diving ducks, or other duck tribes. Hatch-year ducks were 1.7 times more likely to be M1-positive and 13 times more likely to be H5-positive than older ducks. Male ducks were 1.4 times more likely to test positive by H5 RRT-PCR than female ducks.

These data provided a snapshot of the frequency and distribution of influenza A viruses in wild ducks across southern Canada in 2005. This unique nationwide snapshot showed wide variation in detection of M1 and H5 gene sequences among 6 regions that were broadly representative of the northern terminus of duck migration corridors in North America (7). Previous studies have focused on smaller subregions of Canada sampled once or across multiple years (4,810). Direct comparisons with previous studies should be made cautiously. Considerable variation exists across studies in the age and species of birds sampled and seasonality of sampling. All of these variables may affect reported prevalence of infection with influenza A viruses. Also, most previously published results relied on the cultivation of viable virus as the detection method rather than on RRT-PCR applied directly to cloacal swabs.

Because samples for this survey were secured from preestablished duck-banding operations, and young healthy ducks, particularly mallards, were targeted to maximize virus recovery (1,11,12), these data may not represent true infection prevalence in the sampled duck populations. Despite these biases, avian influenza viruses were common in wild ducks across Canada in the summer and fall of 2005. Infection rates detected by RRT-PCR among the 6 regions of Canada were similar in scale and degree of variation to rates reported from the Alberta region, which were measured over 8 consecutive years from 1976 through 1983 (4).

Acknowledgments

We thank the Canadian Wildlife Service, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Ducks Unlimited Canada for participation in field collection; the National Microbiology Laboratory of the Public Health Agency of Canada for assistance with virus analysis; the Centre for Coastal Health for epidemiologic assistance; and the many persons in all the listed agencies whose personal commitment made this survey possible.

This survey was funded by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the Public Health Agency of Canada, Environment Canada, and the provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, and Québec. National consensus, survey protocols and coordination, information technology, fiscal management, and data analysis were provided by the Canadian Cooperative Wildlife Health Centre.

Biography

Dr Parmley is a veterinary epidemiologist at the Centre for Coastal Health and the Canadian Cooperative Wildlife Health Centre in Nanaimo, British Columbia. Her research interests include emerging animal and human diseases, health surveillance, and environmental and wildlife epidemiology.

Footnotes

Suggested citation for this article: Parmley EJ, Bastien N, Booth TF, Bowes V, Buck PA, Breault A, et al. Wild bird influenza survey, Canada, 2005. Emerg Infect Dis [serial on the Internet]. 2008 Jan [date cited]. Available from http://www.cdc.gov/EID/content/14/1/84.htm

References

  • 1.Canadian Cooperative Wildlife Health Centre. Canada’s inter-agency wild bird influenza survey [cited 2007 Jul 2]. Available from http://wildlife1.usask.ca/en/aiv/index.php
  • 2.Olsen B, Munster VJ, Wallensten A, Walsenstrom J, Osterhaus ADME, Fourchier RAM. Global patterns of influenza A virus in wild birds. Science. 2006;312:384–8. 10.1126/science.1122438 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Webster RG, Bean WJ, Gorman OT, Chambers TM, Kawaoka Y. Evolution and ecology of influenza A viruses. Microbiol Rev. 1992;56:152–79. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Hinshaw VS, Wood TM, Webster RG, Deibel R, Turner B. Circulation of influenza viruses and paramyxoviruses in waterfowl originating from two different areas of North America. Bull World Health Organ. 1985;63:711–9. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Spackman E, Senne DA, Myers TJ, Bulaga LL, Garber LP, Perdue ML, et al. Development of a real-time reverse transcriptase PCR assay for type A influenza and avian H5 and H7 hemagglutinin subtypes. J Clin Microbiol. 2002;40:3256–60. 10.1128/JCM.40.9.3256-3260.2002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Dohoo I, Martin W, Stryhn H. Veterinary epidemiologic research. Charlottetown (Prince Edward Island, Canada): AVC Inc.; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Bellrose FC. Ducks, geese and swans of North America. 2nd ed. Harrisburg (PA): Stackpole Books; 1976. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Boudreault A, Lecomte J, Hinshaw VS. Caracterisation antigenique des virus influenza A isoles des oiseaux captures dans l'Ontario, le Quebec et les provinces Maritimes durant la saison 1977. Rev Can Biol. 1980;39:107–14. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Boudreault A, Lecomte J. Isolement de virus grippaux chez differentes especes aviaires au Canada en 1978. Rev Can Biol. 1981;40:139–45. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Hatchette TF, Walker D, Johnson C, Baker A, Pryor SP, Webster RG. Influenza A viruses in feral Canadian ducks: extensive reassortment in nature. J Gen Virol. 2004;85:2327–37. 10.1099/vir.0.79878-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Stallknecht DE, Shane SM. Host range of avian influenza virus in free-living birds. Vet Res Commun. 1988;12:125–41. 10.1007/BF00362792 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Krauss S, Walker D, Pryor SP, Niles L, Chenghong L, Hinshaw VS, et al. Influenza A viruses of migrating wild aquatic birds in North America. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2004;4:177–89. 10.1089/vbz.2004.4.177 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Emerging Infectious Diseases are provided here courtesy of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

RESOURCES