Wild Florida mottled ducks demonstrate strong heterogeneity in their humoral innate immune response

Abstract

The Florida Mottled Duck (Anas fulvigula fulvigula) is a unique subspecies of waterfowl whose range is limited to peninsular Florida, USA. As an endemic subspecies, Florida Mottled Ducks face numerous conservation stressors, such as habitat conversion and hybridization with non-native Mallards (Anas platyrhynchos). In addition to these numerous stressors, Mottled Ducks are also contending with emerging and/or geographically expanding waterborne pathogens such as Vibrio spp., due to the effects of climate change. However, even given their conservation needs, little is known with respect to the health, physiology, and the immunity of wild Mottled Ducks in Florida. Given this lack of data, we performed health assessments of Mottled Ducks in the Central Florida area. Specifically, we examined the humoral innate immune system, i.e., the plasma of Mottled Ducks in response to a common but extraneous pathogen: Escherichia coli strain American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) number 8739. We utilized a bactericidal assay (“bacterial killing assay” or BKA) commonly used in eco-immunology, to provide insight into the bactericidal capacities of captured Florida Mottled Ducks. We statistically tested the BKA capacity, or microbial killing ability, of 23 Mottled Ducks in response to age and whole blood lead levels (Pb). We found that there was no statistically significant relationship between the covariates we measured and Mottled Duck BKA capacity against E. coli. However, the variability we observed in the BKA capacity of this subspecies warrants further research into additional physiological and ecological covariates coupled with potential immune stressors that Florida Mottled Ducks may be contending with.

Introduction

The Florida Mottled Duck (Anas fulvigula fulvigula) is an iconic and endemic subspecies that is contending with immense conservation pressures [1–3]. Urbanization, agricultural conversion, and suburban sprawl continue to fragment the habitat of this subspecies, an observation that was initially reported in the 1950’s [3–5]. Mottled Ducks are sedentary dabbling ducks, i.e., ducks that ‘tip-up’ in the water to forage and inhabit a gradient of urban to rural habitats throughout the state [4]. Currently, populations in northern Florida are facing stronger environmental stressors than those in the southern portion of their range, where this research took place [2]. However, the most pressing range-wide management concern remains their hybridization with non-native Mallards (Anas platyrhynchos) [1,3]. All Mallards that reside year-round in Florida are currently considered invasive, having been intentionally released or escaped from game-farm facilities [6–8]. Due to the sheer number of Mallards and Mottled Duck x Mallard hybrids in Florida, the genetic swamping of ‘pure’ Mottled Ducks is an overwhelming priority with respect to their preservation as a subspecies [1,9].

In addition to urbanization and genetic introgression, aquatic species such as Mottled Ducks are now contending with a rise in waterborne pathogen abundances and distributions due to climate change [10,11]. For instance, climate-sensitive and pathogenic Vibrio species such as Vibrio parahaemolyticus have been isolated from Mottled Ducks of Texas [12,13]. Such pathogenic Vibrio species are also present in Florida, and disease in wild birds has been associated with Vibrio parahaemolyticus, Vibrio cholerae non-O1/O139, and Vibrio metschnikovii [13–15]. Additionally, both high and low pathogenic avian influenza viruses have been isolated from Florida Mottled Ducks, yet the impact that such pathogens may have on the dwindling populations of Mottled Ducks is starkly lacking [16]. However, even given the conservation needs of wild Mottled Ducks of Florida, little is known with respect to their health and physiology. Thus, we were interested in understanding the capacity of Mottled Ducks to kill an invasive bacterium (Escherichia coli strain American Type Culture Collection, hereafter ATCC, number 8739) using a sample of their fresh, frozen plasma [17,18]. Such physiological traits, i.e., immune function, may be linked to their health or fitness [19,20]. These life-history traits are essential to measure in species and subspecies of conservation concern – a central tenet of conservation biology [21, 22].The assay we utilized, commonly known as the bactericidal assay (hereafter, BKA), it is a measure of humoral innate immunity – the first line of defense against pathogen invasion [23, 24].

As one of two immunological strategies employed, together, the humoral and the cellular avian innate immune system confers a rapid, initial resistance against circulating pathogens - including novel and emerging infectious diseases [25]. It does so through the use of cellular effector proteins and pattern recognition receptors, which recognize antigenic constituents such as complex polysaccharides, glycolipids, lipoproteins, nucleotides and nucleic acids [26, 27]. Conversely, the adaptive immune system mounts a slower, albeit more sophisticated response against a single antigen which can be recalled from immunological memory cells upon secondary exposure to that specific antigen [28,29]. Both systems work in tandem to protect the host from microbial invasion, however, the strength of that response can vary according to sex, age, body condition, pace of life and pollutant exposure [30–37].

For instance, lead (hereafter, Pb) is a highly toxic heavy metal with immunosuppressive properties in vertebrates [38]. In birds, Pb interferes with innate and adaptive cell-mediated, and humoral immunity [37,39–41]. Although the use of Pb shot for hunting waterfowl was banned in 1991 in the United States, followed by Canada in 1997 [42], it persists in terrestrial and aquatic habitats as a legacy contaminant [43,44]. Fishing tackle is another source of Pb which may be consumed by aquatic birds as well [45,46]. Waterfowl ingest Pb primarily through feeding, with dabbling ducks in the Mallard complex amongst those most affected [47,48]. In 1986, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service mandated that blood Pb levels above 20 ug/dl (micrograms of Pb per deciliter of whole blood) in waterfowl was a sublethal threshold that exceeded background exposure levels [47,49].

Crucial to an organism’s survival is the ability to generate energetic trade-offs amid resource limitations and environmental stressors [50–53]. While the maintenance of a robust immune system is critical, so too is the ability of birds to undergo physiologically demanding life stages such as migration, molt, or reproduction [35,50,54,55]. In such instances, immunocompetence may be negatively correlated with such natural history investments. Thus, there are many benefits to utilizing the BKA to measure humoral and/or adaptive innate immunity, especially in a subspecies experiencing numerous conservation stressors [20,56]. For example, it is relatively easy to perform in a field or laboratory setting, it requires only small volumes of blood, serum or plasma, and the assay’s interpretation is straightforward [57,58].

The BKA has been widely implemented by eco-immunologists to investigate relevant avian life history variables in relation to immunocompetence [59,60]. For example, infestations of chewing lice (Mallophaga spp.) were associated with a reduction in the microbicidal killing capacity of suburban birds in Chicago, Illinois, USA [24]. Baseline cortisol levels were positively linked to the bactericidal ability of male Red-winged Blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus) in Santa Barbara, California, USA [61]. Thermal variation in egg incubation, specifically higher temperatures, covaried with a higher BKA capacity, or microbial killing ability, in nestling American Robins (Turdus migratorius) [62]. House Finches (Haemorhous mexicanus) infected with the bacterial pathogen Mycoplasma gallisepticum had a higher BKA capacity in spite of handling stress in contrast to their uninfected counterparts [63]. In essence, such examples are only a limited representation of how the BKA can help us understand the factors that influence avian immunology [59].

Given the pressing conservation needs of Florida Mottled Ducks, we performed BKAs on free-ranging individuals captured in Central Florida to derive insight into the humoral innate immune status of the population, as well as in response to Pb exposure levels and age. As Pb is a well-known immunosuppressant [64–66], and has been detected in Mottled Duck populations from Texas [67–69], our inclusion of this variable as a covariate was imperative to the study. Specifically, our objective was to gain insight into the humoral innate immune system of a subspecies experiencing a diminishing population size, and thus, at risk of pathogen invasion [70]. This objective is currently very timely, as we are experiencing a highly pathogenic avian influenza pandemic that has decimated wild bird populations around the globe [71–74]. We hypothesized that older birds, having had more time to be exposed to immunosuppressive environmental Pb, would have a diminished BKA capacity. Thus, using fresh, frozen plasma that was collected during a pathogen surveillance study, we explored Mottled Duck BKA capacity against E.coli ATCC strain 8739. Our statistical analyses measured our BKA results in relation to covariates such as age, sex, weight, and whole blood lead (Pb) levels.

Materials and methods

Ethics statement

All fieldwork was conducted under U.S. Geological Service Bird Banding Laboratory federal permit number 06672, in collaboration with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. In addition, all work was conducted in accordance with Yale University’s Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) protocol AUP #: 2021-20379. All Mottled Ducks were live captured and released using humane handling and care from public lands owned by the state of Florida, Orange County, or the city of Orlando.

Capture and sampling of Florida Mottled Ducks

Florida Mottled Ducks (n =  42) were humanely captured at three sites in Central Florida during August of 2022. Capture sites included one suburban site (Lake Millenia, Orange County, n =  1), and two rural sites (Puzzle Lake, Seminole County, n =  3 and T.M. Goodwin Wildlife Management Area, Indian River County, n =  38). Mottled Ducks were captured using either eight-foot wide bownets (Modern Falconry, Eau Claire, Wisconsin, USA) that were baited with cracked corn [75], or through night-time spotlighting [76,77]. All individuals were banded with a federal band as per U.S. Geological Survey guidelines [2] and to prevent pseudo-replication [78].

Demographic attributes such as age and sex were assessed using physical characteristics as described by Pyle (2008) [79,80]. Specifically, sex was assessed using bill color, where males have an olive green to yellow bill, and females have an orange to brown bill, with a distinctive spot on the underside [81]. Age was assessed through plumage molt patterns and cloacal examination [82]. Birds were placed into the hatch-year (HY) category if they had hatched in the 2022 breeding cycle, or after-hatch year (AHY) if hatched before 2022 [82]. The mass in grams for each bird was collected using an MTB 20 medical-grade scale (Adam Equipment, Oxford, Connecticut, USA). Given that measurements were collected during the molting season for Mottled Ducks, including primary wing feathers [83], we were unable to collect wing chord lengths to standardize their size [84].

Up to three mL of blood were collected from the medial metatarsal vein, located on the medial aspect of the tarsometatarsus [85,86]. This is one of the most commonly utilized sites for blood collection in waterfowl [86]. Up to one mL each was transferred to a red-top vacutainer for serum, a green-top heparinized vacutainer for plasma, and a purple-top vacutainer with ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) for whole blood Pbanalysis (Becton Dickinson, Franklin Lakes, New Jersey, USA). Vacutainers were placed into a cooler with ice packs until transport to the lab. Plasma and serum vacutainers were centrifuged at 5000 RPM for 10 minutes. Whole blood vacutainers were immediately shipped overnight with ice packs to the toxicology department of the Cornell Animal Health Diagnostic Laboratory (AHDC; Cornell University, Ithaca, New York) for analysis [87]. Separated plasma and serum samples were also immediately shipped overnight on ice packs for storage at Yale University and maintained at -20°C until further analyses [88].

Whole blood Pb analysis

Whole blood samples in vacutainers with EDTA were prepared for analysis at the AHDC of Cornell University. Briefly, blood samples underwent graphite furnace atomic absorption spectroscopy (GFAAS) Pb analysis using a transversely heated GFAAS with longitudinal Zeeman-effect background correction [89,90]. A 100-μl subsample was taken of each sample, placed into a 2-ml cup, and mixed with 900 μl of Pb matrix-modifier solution composed of distilled deionized water, 0.02% analytical-grade ammonium phosphate, 0.05% analytical grade magnesium nitrate, 1.0% analytical-grade nitric acid, and 0.1% Triton X. Standards containing 2.50, 5.00, 10.00, and 50.00 μg/dl Pb to construct a calibration curve were prepared by diluting certified atomic absorption standard solution in matrix modifier and placing into 2-ml cups, which were placed in the autosampler tray. All blanks, standards, and samples were analyzed in duplicate. The calibration curve provided a linear response across this range with a correlation coefficient of 0.999. The average of two replicates was taken for statistical analysis. Blood samples containing greater than 50 μl/dl of Pb were diluted 1:1 in matrix-modifier solution and reanalyzed. The limit of detection (LOD) was 2.50 μg/dl based on the lowest standard solution [91].

Bactericidal assays

A wide-ranging literature search indicated that E. coli ATCC strain number 8739 is among the most widely used strains in avian eco-immunology [35,57,61,63,92–97]. Thus, we incorporated the same strain into this experiment for reproducibility purposes. We prevented cross-contamination by performing all microbial work in an A2 Class II Biosafety Cabinet (Baker, Sanford, Maine, USA) and applying sterile principles. Clear plate sealers were used when the 96-well plate was removed from the biosafety cabinet. In addition, all materials such as media, pipette tips, and reagent boats were autoclaved prior to use. Bactericidal assays were performed using a protocol delineated by French and Neuman-Lee [98] with minor modifications as described in LaVere et al (2021) [99]. Any deviations from these protocols are detailed below.

Preparations to perform the BKA are briefly described as follows. Fresh tryptic soy broth (Sigma-Aldrich NO. T8907) was constituted by dissolving 15 grams in 500 mL ultrapure filtered water (Millipore Milli-Q™ Direct Water Purification System, Sigma-Aldrich). Fresh tryptic soy agar petri dishes (Sigma-Aldrich) were made by dissolving 22.5 g in 500 mL ultrapure water and storing them at 4°C. We then incubated 100 mL of 0.9% phosphate buffered saline (PBS) at 37°C and added the lyophilized E. coli pellet (EPower Microorganisms, Microbiologics). Finally, the tryptic soy agar plates were inoculated with the stock solution of E. coli, and incubated for 12 hours at 37°C.

To perform the BKA, the Prompt Inoculation System (BD BBL™ Prompt™ Inoculation System, Franklin Lakes, New Jersey, USA) [100] was used to create a 10⁵ working stock of E. coli from five colonies grown on tryptic soy agar [99]. The Mottled Duck frozen plasma samples (n =  27) were placed on ice and thawed completely. Flat-bottomed, 96 well plates were used to run the assay which included positive controls (125 uL of tryptic soy broth +  20 uL of PBS +  4 uL of E. coli), negative controls (125 uL of tryptic soy broth +  24 uL of PBS), sample wells (125 uL of tryptic soy broth +  16 uL of PBS +  4 uL of E. coli +  4 uL of plasma) and blank wells (125 uL of tryptic soy broth). The optimal dilution of plasma for the BKA was found to be 1:2 (equal parts plasma and PBS) after testing a range of concentrations. PBS, plasma, and E. coli were added to wells first, then shaken using a microplate shaker at 300 RPMs for one minute to ensure proper mixing. Following this, tryptic soy broth was added to the appropriate wells and shaken again.

Plasma samples were run in triplicate, with the exception of two samples. One sample had six replicates, and one sample only had only a single replicate due to limited plasma. Positive, negative, and blank wells were each assayed in replicates of eight. An accuSkan FC (Fisherbrand, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA) microplate reader was used to analyze the optical density of each well at 405 nm [101]. After the initial reading, the plate was incubated at 37°C for 12 hours, after which the plate was analyzed again. Finally, the BKA capacity for each plasma sample was calculated following LaVere [99].

Statistical analyses

All statistical analyses were performed using the R platform, version 4.2.2 [102].

Lead (Pb): Due to standard limitations, the limit of detection (LOD) of all blood lead concentrations were censored at values below 2.50 μg/dl [91]. In light of the already limited sample size with which to test the effects of Pb, we therefore imputed the Pb values that were below the LOD into our dataset [103]. Using a relatively new published method by Hebers et al. (2021), we utilized the lognormal distribution and the probability distribution function of our known values to calculate the unknown values [104]. We then used the mean of the newly estimated values for those Pb values below 2.50 μg/dl and imputed that mean into our dataset [103].

As Pb served as a continuous variable, we assessed its distribution using the Cullen and Frey distribution plot [105], followed by a Shapiro-Wilk’s test of Normality [106].

BKA: First, the mean for each set of triplicate plasma samples was calculated. Given that it served as a continuous variable, we also then assessed its distribution using the Cullen and Frey distribution plot [105], followed by a Shapiro-Wilk’s test of Normality [106].

Weight in Grams: Also serving as a continuous variable, we assessed its distribution using the Cullen and Frey distribution plot [105], followed by a Shapiro-Wilk’s test of Normality [106].

Age and Sex: Each of these is a categorical variable. Age was divided into two categories: HY or hatching-year juveniles, while adults were labeled as AHY, or after hatching year birds. Based on plumage and bill characteristics, Mottled Ducks were also placed into either the male (M) or female (F) category. These classifications are part of the logistic distribution; thus, no Cullen and Frey distribution plot was performed.

Bivariate Tests of Association: Each independent variable was assessed with respect to one another to reduce the likelihood of multicollinearity [107] in our generalized linear model. Due to the non-parametric nature of the variable Pb and Weight in Grams, we performed a Spearman’s Rank Correlation test to examine the association between the two variables. Pb and Age, and Pb and Sex were both analyzed using the non-parametric Mann-U Whitney test. Weight in Grams is a parametric variable, and thus was assessed using an independent samples t-test against Age and Sex, respectively.

Power Analysis: We utilized a power analysis within the R platform to determine the minimum sample size necessary to draw statistically relevant conclusions from our generalized linear model.

Generalized Linear Model of Covariates: We assessed the variables Pb and Age against the dependent variable BKA using a generalized linear model (GLM) with a Gaussian link function. We did so to test the hypothesis that older birds, having had a longer period by which to be exposed to immunosuppressive environmental lead sources, would have a reduced BKA capacity. We used a GLM given that our independent and dependent variables did not meet the parametric assumptions required to perform an ANCOVA. We further examined the effect sizes of Pb and Age on BKA capacity using the Eta² test.

Results

Whole blood Pb analysis

Pb served as an independent variable. In total, we collected sufficient blood to test 36 (n =  36) of the 42 captured Mottled Ducks for Pb analysis. Eighteen of those 36 individuals had blood Pb levels below the 2.50 μg/dl LOD. Based on the probability density function of the lognormal distribution, we calculated a mean value of 1.2 μg/dl, which we imputed for each bird below the LOD.

With respect to our dependent variable, BKA, we had 27 (n =  27) Pb samples for statistical comparison. However, four individuals were unable to be analyzed due to a lack of corresponding data covariates: Pb testing or weight in grams. Thus, in this group of (n =  23) Mottled Ducks, Pb values ranged from a minimum of 1.2 μg/dl to a maximum of 29.46 μg/dl. The overall mean Pb value was 6.03 μg/dl with a standard deviation of 7.05 μg/dl, and a median value of 2.51 μg/dl. The Shapiro-Wilk’s test of Normality found that the Pb data were not normally distributed (W =  0.72952, p-value =  < 0.0001). According to the Cullen and Frey plot, the variable Pb fell into the Beta distribution, with an estimated skewness of 2.037587 and an estimated kurtosis of 7.741181.

Weight in grams

The variable weight in grams served as an independent covariate, from which we sub-sampled 23 (n =  23) individuals that corresponded to the birds with plasma samples. In this sub-sample, Mottled Duck weight in grams ranged from a minimum of 460 grams to a maximum of 1200 grams. The mean weight was 907 grams, with an estimated standard deviation of 171.3 and a median of 915 grams. The Shapiro-Wilk’s test of Normality established that this variable was normally distributed (W =  0.96722, p-value =  0.6227). According to the Cullen and Frey plot, the estimated skewness was -0.565771, while the estimated kurtosis was 3.657986.

BKA

BKA served as the sole dependent variable. Corresponding plasma was available for 23 (n =  23) of the 42 captured Mottled Ducks for use in the assay (Table 1). The Shapiro-Wilk’s test of Normality found that the BKA data were not normally distributed (W =  0.90455, p-value =  0.03141). According to the Cullen and Frey plot, the distribution of the BKA values fell between the Beta and Uniform distributions, with an estimated skewness of -0.1391962, and an estimated kurtosis of 1.575785.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Age and sex

From our sub-sample of 23 (n =  23) Mottled Ducks, 18 birds were AHY and five were HY birds. In addition, eight birds were female, and 15 birds were male.

Bivariate tests of association

Pb and Weight in Grams.

As Pb is a non-parametric variable, we performed a Spearman’s Rank Correlation test to examine the association between the two variables. We found no statistically significant relationship between the two variables (S =  1794, p-value =  0.6056, ρ =  0.1136471).

Pb and Age.

Pb and Weight in Grams: As Pb is a non-parametric variable, we performed a Spearman’s Rank Correlation test to examine the association between the two variables. We found no statistically significant relationship between the two variables (S =  1794, p-value =  0.6056, ρ =  0.1136471). However, in the boxplot (Fig 1), AHY birds showed a higher median exposure to Pb compared to HY birds.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Lead and Sex.

A non-parametric Mann-U Whitney test was also conducted to determine the statistical significance between Pb and Sex. We found that there was no statistically significant relationship between the two variables (W =  56, p-value =  0.8109). However, the boxplot (Fig 2), suggests that males have a higher median exposure to Pb than female birds.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Weight in Grams and Age.

We performed a parametric independent samples t-test between the variables weight in grams and age for our sub-sample of n =  23 birds. Although weight was not statistically significant (t =  1.725, df =  21, p-value =  0.09922) when contrasted between the groups AHY and HY, there was a distinct trend towards older birds categorized in a higher weight class. AHY birds had a mean weight in grams of 938 g and HY birds had a mean weight of 795 g.

Weight in Grams and Sex.

We again performed a parametric independent samples t-test between the variables weight in grams and sex for our sub-sample of n =  23 birds. In this instance, weight in grams was statistically significant (t =  -4.3335, df =  21, p-value =  0.0002927) when contrasted between the groups F and M. Male birds had a greater mean weight in grams of 991 g and F birds had a mean weight of 749 g.

Power Analysis.

We calculated the sample size of Florida Mottled Ducks needed for each Age group, utilizing a power of 0.80, a moderate effect size of 0.25, and employing a significance level of 0.05. We found that each Age group (HY vs. AHY) would have required a sample size of 42, for a total of 84 Florida Mottled Ducks, in order to draw relevant statistically significant conclusions.

Generalized Linear Model

In our GLM, we examined the effects of Pb and Age with respect to BKA capacity as our dependent variable. A non-significant effect was observed for Pb (t =  -0.243, df =  20, p-value =  0.810, η² =  0.0002) and Age (t =  -1.368, df =  20, p-value =  0.187, η² =  0.09) on our BKA values.

The histogram in Fig 3 demonstrates the variability of the BKA capacity in our 23 Mottled Duck samples and findings from the GLM depicted in Fig 4.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Discussion

A 2019 study stated that the “variation in immune defense influences infectious disease dynamics within and among species” [59]. In this study, we sought to characterize the BKA capacity of Mottled Ducks in Central Florida as a proxy for the function of their humoral innate immune system [32,108]. Given the array of stressors currently faced by Mottled Ducks in Florida [1,2,77,80,81], we found it was imperative to quantify their innate immune resilience in response to an additional pressure—novel and/or emerging pathogens due to climate change, i.e., Vibrio spp. [14,109]. We found that the microbial killing capacity of Mottled Ducks varied widely among individuals (Fig 3), however we were unable to decipher a specific covariate that we had measured to explain why.

Although our limited sample size of 23 Mottled Ducks presents difficulties in making further inferences [110–112], we were surprised that birds with higher Pb levels did not have a statistically significantly reduced BKA capacity [46,113–115]. Our power analysis underscores the difficulties in making further inferences from the statistics. However, a trade-off may be in place that we had not initially considered. Specifically, while AHY birds may have had longer environmental contaminant exposures to Pb, they also generally have a much more robust immune system than HY birds [116,117]. HY birds are also more sensitive to the immunotoxic effects of Pb [41]. While the relationship between age and immunity has been documented more frequently in the case of the humoral adaptive immune system [118–120], the innate immune system may be an important trait that covaries with age as well [33,121,122]. In addition, our analysis of BKA capacity with respect to weight was two-pronged in its objectives. First, weight tends to covary with age in waterfowl, thus, we wanted to ensure we had analyzed each potentially confounding variable. Secondly, in ecotoxicology, there is a dogma that the ‘dose makes the poison.’ Specifically, smaller, and thus, younger birds would potentially be more likely to suffer the immunosuppressive effects of Pb due to size in contrast to their larger counterparts [123]. In essence, more research is needed into the interplay of age, environmental contaminants, and innate immunity among avian species.

The expenditure of energetic resources during the summer or remigial molt [80,124–126], and the subsequent differences in those molt patterns that are delineated by age may have played a role in the BKA value variation we observed [117,127,128]. For example, Rufous-collared Sparrows (Zonotrichia capensis peruviensis) in Chile that were not molting and not breeding had the lowest levels of immune function as measured by the BKA [54]. However, this pattern should have been apparent between molting HY and AHY Mottled Ducks given differing molt patterns [80,83,129], and yet that trend was not statistically significant according to our analyses.

At the individual level, we observed distinct heterogeneity in the BKA capacities of our Mottled Ducks. From a conservation-oriented perspective, this is concerning [130–132], as it suggests that some individuals in an already stressed population are less likely to be able to stave off an initial pathogen infection [133,134]. Aquatic species, such as Florida Mottled Ducks, will also be more likely to encounter waterborne pathogens such as pathogenic Vibrio species which are becoming more abundant and virulent due to the warming of Florida’s climate [14,135–138]. In addition, the continued circulation of highly pathogenic avian influenza continues to pose a risk to wild birds in North America [72]. Given that we were unable to identify a covariate to explain our results due to a limited sample size, more research is inherently needed into the immune dynamics, and inherent pathogen resiliency, of this endemic subspecies [139]. We are able to report a statistically significant finding that correlates with other waterfowl species: there are significant differences in the weight in grams between males and females, however these weights were not standardized by wing chord or tarsus length [140].

Further research into the Mottled Duck system will require a larger sample size of birds captured across multiple seasons to strongly infer the covariates that may be influencing their health in response to the stressors they are facing. Given their status as a subspecies of special concern, we underscore the need for further research into the Florida Mottled Duck system, particularly regarding health and disease. However, we should note that dabbling ducks [141], and Florida Mottled Ducks in particular, are extremely difficult to live capture. This step is necessary for collecting blood parameters and microbiome samples for pathogen analysis. Dabbling ducks also dehydrate quickly, making blood collection difficult [142]. Due to these limitations, it is likely that the sparse literature on disease sampling in Florida Mottled Ducks tends towards hunter-harvested carcasses [143]. However, at the point of host death, blood begins to clot, and the microbiome begins to decompose, leading to potentially biased results. Thus, longitudinal studies using humane, live captures are necessary to truly capture population-level trends with respect to health and disease in this subspecies.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the members of the Almagro-Moreno and Ogbunu research groups for helpful feedback and the maintenance of samples at Yale University, especially T.J. Johnson, Carolina A. Diaz, and Ketty Kabengele. In addition, the authors are grateful to the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection for information and training with regards to the live trapping of dabbling ducks. Lastly, the authors would like to thank two anonymous reviewers and the editor for their helpful comments on the manuscript.

References

1. 1. Bielefeld RR, Garrettson PR, Dooley JL. Variation in Survival and Harvest Rates in Florida Mottled Duck. J Wildl Manag. 2020;84(8):1515–26.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

2. 2. XXX

3. 3. Varner DM, Hepp GR, Bielefeld RR. Movements and seasonal use of habitats by rural and urban female mottled ducks in southeast Florida. J Wildl Manag. 2014;78(5):840–7.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

4. 4. Johnson FA, III FM, Truitt JD, Eggeman DR. Distribution, Abundance, and Habitat Use by Mottled Ducks in Florida. J Wildl Manage. 1991;55(3):476.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

5. 5. Varner DM, Bielefeld RR, Hepp GR. Nesting ecology of Florida mottled ducks using altered habitats. Jour Wild Mgmt. 2013;77(5):1002–9.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

6. 6. Avery ML, Moulton MP. Florida’s non-native avifauna. In: Witmer GW, Pitt WC, Fagerstone KA, editors. Managing vertebrate invasive species: proceedings of an international symposium; 2007 Aug 7-9; USDA/APHIS Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. p. 365–377. Available from: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=nwrcinvasive

7. 7. Lavretsky P, Mohl JE, Söderquist P, Kraus RHS, Schummer ML, Brown JI. The meaning of wild: Genetic and adaptive consequences from large-scale releases of domestic mallards. Commun Biol. 2023;6(1):819. pmid:37543640

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

8. 8. Drilling N, Titman R, McKinney F. Mallard. Birds of the World. 2020. Available from: https://birdsoftheworld.org/bow/species/mallar3/cur/introduction

* View Article

* Google Scholar

9. 9. Peters JL, Lavretsky P, DaCosta JM, Bielefeld RR, Feddersen JC, Sorenson MD. Population genomic data delineate conservation units in mottled ducks (Anas fulvigula). Biol Conserv. 2016;203272–81.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

10. 10. Levy K, Smith SM, Carlton EJ. Climate Change Impacts on Waterborne Diseases: Moving Toward Designing Interventions. Curr Environ Health Rep. 2018;5(2):272–82. pmid:29721700

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

11. 11. Semenza JC. Cascading risks of waterborne diseases from climate change. Nat Immunol. 2020;21(5):484–7. pmid:32313241

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

12. 12. Cox M. Prevalence of Vibrio species in waterfowl of Jefferson County, Texas. M.Sc. Thesis. Lamar University. 1992. Available from: https://www.proquest.com/docview/304032726?sourcetype=Dissertations%20&%20Theses

* View Article

* Google Scholar

13. 13. Ayala AJ, Ogbunugafor CB. When Vibrios Take Flight: A Meta-Analysis of Pathogenic Vibrio Species in Wild and Domestic Birds. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2023;1404:295–336. pmid:36792882

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

14. 14. Ayala AJ, Kabengele K, Almagro-Moreno S, Ogbunugafor CB. Meteorological associations of Vibrio vulnificus clinical infections in tropical settings: Correlations with air pressure, wind speed, and temperature. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2023;17(7):e0011461. pmid:37410780

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

15. 15. Balasubramanian D, López-Pérez M, Grant T-A, Ogbunugafor CB, Almagro-Moreno S. Molecular mechanisms and drivers of pathogen emergence. Trends Microbiol. 2022;30(9):898–911. pmid:35248462.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

16. 16. Rollo SN, Ferro PJ, Peterson MJ, Ward MP, Ballard BM, Lupiani B. Role of nonmigratory mottled ducks (Anas fulvigula) as sentinels for avian influenza surveillance. J Zoo Wildl Med. 2012;43(1):168–70. pmid:22448526.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

17. 17. Matson KD, Tieleman BI, Klasing KC. Capture stress and the bactericidal competence of blood and plasma in five species of tropical birds. Physiol Biochem Zool. 2006;79(3):556–64. pmid:16691521.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

18. 18. Chang van Oordt DA, Taff CC, Pipkin MA, Ryan TA, Vitousek MN. Experimentally elevated corticosterone does not affect bacteria killing ability of breeding female tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor). Horm Behav. 2024;160:105500. pmid:38316079.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

19. 19. Tieleman BI, Croese E, Helm B, Versteegh MA. Repeatability and individual correlates of microbicidal capacity of bird blood. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Molecular & Integrative Physiology. 2010;156(4):537–40. PMID: 38316079

* View Article

* Google Scholar

20. 20. Schmitt C, Garant D, Bélisle M, Pelletier F. Agricultural Intensification Is Linked to Constitutive Innate Immune Function in a Wild Bird Population. Physiol Biochem Zool. 2017;90(2):201–9. pmid:28277952.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

21. 21. Kophamel S, Illing B, Ariel E, Difalco M, Skerratt LF, Hamann M, et al. Importance of health assessments for conservation in noncaptive wildlife. Conserv Biol. 2022;36(1):e13724. pmid:33634525.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

22. 22. Redford KH, Amato G, Baillie J, Beldomenico P, Bennett EL, Clum N, et al. What Does It Mean to Successfully Conserve a (Vertebrate) Species?. BioScience. 2011;61(1):39–48.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

23. 23. Juul-Madsen HR, Viertlboeck B, Smith AL, Göbel TWF. Avian innate immune responses. Avian Immunol. 2008129–58.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

24. 24. Girard J, Goldberg TL, Hamer GL. Field investigation of innate immunity in passerine birds in suburban Chicago, Illinois, USA. J Wildl Dis. 2011;47(3):603–11. pmid:21719824.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

25. 25. Bonneaud C, Balenger SL, Zhang J, Edwards SV, Hill GE. Innate immunity and the evolution of resistance to an emerging infectious disease in a wild bird. Mol Ecol. 2012;21(11):2628–39. pmid:22512302.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

26. 26. Riera Romo M, Pérez-Martínez D, Castillo Ferrer C. Innate immunity in vertebrates: an overview. Immunology. 2016;148(2):125–39. pmid:26878338.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

27. 27. Chen S, Cheng A, Wang M. Innate sensing of viruses by pattern recognition receptors in birds. Vet Res. 2013;44(1):82. pmid:24016341

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

28. 28. Boehm T. Evolution of vertebrate immunity. Curr Biol. 2012;22(17):R722-32. pmid:22975003.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

29. 29. Boehm T, Swann JB. Origin and evolution of adaptive immunity. Annu Rev Anim Biosci. 2014;2:259–83. pmid:25384143.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

30. 30. Hasselquist D, Nilsson J-Å. Physiological mechanisms mediating costs of immune responses: what can we learn from studies of birds?. Anim Behav. 2012;83(6):1303–12.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

31. 31. Hasselquist D. Comparative immunoecology in birds: hypotheses and tests. J Ornithol. 2007;148(S2):571–82.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

32. 32. Irene Tieleman B, Williams JB, Ricklefs RE, Klasing KC. Constitutive innate immunity is a component of the pace-of-life syndrome in tropical birds. Proc Biol Sci. 2005;272(1573):1715–20. pmid:16087427

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

33. 33. Vermeulen A, Eens M, Van Dongen S, Müller W. Does baseline innate immunity change with age? A multi-year study in great tits. Exp Gerontol. 2017;92:67–73. pmid:28315788

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

34. 34. Stambaugh T, Houdek BJ, Lombardo MP, Thorpe PA, Caldwell Hahn D. Innate immune response development in nestling tree swallows. Wilson J Ornithol. 2011;123(4):779–87.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

35. 35. Wilcoxen TE, Boughton RK, Schoech SJ. Selection on innate immunity and body condition in Florida scrub-jays throughout an epidemic. Biol Lett. 2010;6(4):552–4. pmid:20164081.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

36. 36. Bauerová P, Vinklerová J, Hraníček J, Čorba V, Vojtek L, Svobodová J, et al. Associations of urban environmental pollution with health-related physiological traits in a free-living bird species. Sci Total Environ. 2017;601–6021556–65. pmid:28605873.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

37. 37. Vallverdú-Coll N, Mateo R, Mougeot F, Ortiz-Santaliestra ME. Immunotoxic effects of lead on birds. Sci Total Environ. 2019;689:505–15. pmid:31279197.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

38. 38. Franson JC, Pain DJ. Environmental Contaminants in Biota: Interpreting Tissue Concentrations, Second Edition. In: Beyer WN, Meador JP, editors. Lead in Birds. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2011. pp. 563–583. Available from: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/reader/read-online/09fdb1ea-923e-42f6-afda-ef651f279c96/chapter/pdf?context=ubx

39. 39. Snoeijs T, Dauwe T, Pinxten R, Darras VM, Arckens L, Eens M. The combined effect of lead exposure and high or low dietary calcium on health and immunocompetence in the zebra finch (Taeniopygia guttata). Environ Pollut. 2005;134(1):123–32. pmid:15572230

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

40. 40. Pikula J, Bandouchova H, Hilscherova K, Paskova V, Sedlackova J, Adamovsky O, et al. Combined exposure to cyanobacterial biomass, lead and the Newcastle virus enhances avian toxicity. Sci Total Environ. 2010;408(21):4984–92. pmid:20701952

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

41. 41. Vallverdú-Coll N, Mougeot F, Ortiz-Santaliestra ME, Rodriguez-Estival J, López-Antia A, Mateo R. Lead exposure reduces carotenoid-based coloration and constitutive immunity in wild mallards. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2016;35(6):1516–25. pmid:26551027

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

42. 42. Thomas VG. Harmonizing approval of nontoxic shot and sinkers in North America. Wildl Soc Bull. 2003.292–5.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

43. 43. Michaels RA. Legacy Contaminants of Emerging Concern: Lead (Pb), Flint (MI), and Human Health. Environ Claims J. 2019;32(1):6–45.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

44. 44. Spears BL, Hansen JA, Audet DJ. Blood lead concentrations in waterfowl utilizing Lake Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 2007;52(1):121–8. pmid:17082999.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

45. 45. Franson JC, Hansen SP, Creekmore TE, Brand CJ, Evers DC, Duerr AE, et al. Lead Fishing Weights and Other Fishing Tackle in Selected Waterbirds. Waterbirds. 2003;26(3):345–52.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

46. 46. Williams RJ, Holladay SD, Williams SM, Gogal RM . Environmental Lead and Wild Birds: A Review. In: de Voogt P, editor. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology Volume 245. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018. p. 157–180.

47. 47. Sanderson GC, Bellrose FC. A review of the problem of lead poisoning in waterfowl. 1986. Available from: https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/items/119502

* View Article

* Google Scholar

48. 48. Mateo R, Belliure J, Dolz J, Aguilar Serrano JM, Guitart R. High Prevalences of Lead Poisoning in Wintering Waterfowl in Spain. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 1998;35(2):342–7. pmid:9680527.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

49. 49. Lewis NL, Nichols TC, Lilley C, Roscoe DE, Lovy J. Blood Lead Declines in Wintering American Black Ducks in New Jersey Following the Lead Shot Ban. J Fish Wildl Manage. 2021;12(1):174–82.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

50. 50. Eikenaar C, Isaksson C, Hegemann A. A hidden cost of migration? Innate immune function versus antioxidant defense. Ecol Evol. 2018;8(5):2721–8. pmid:29531689.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

51. 51. Norris K. Ecological immunology: life history trade-offs and immune defense in birds. Behav Ecol. 2000;11(1):19–26.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

52. 52. Lochmiller RL, Deerenberg C. Trade‐offs in evolutionary immunology: just what is the cost of immunity?. Oikos. 2000;88(1):87–98.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

53. 53. Zhang W, Sun H, Su R, Wang S. Fat rather than health - Ecotoxic responses of Bufo raddei to environmental heavy metal stress during the non-breeding season. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2022;244:114040. pmid:36055043.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

54. 54. Merrill L, González-Gómez PL, Ellis VA, Levin II, Vásquez RA, Wingfield JC. A blurring of life-history lines: Immune function, molt and reproduction in a highly stable environment. Gen Comp Endocrinol. 2015;213:65–73. pmid:25712433.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

55. 55. Salvante KG. Techniques for Studying Integrated Immune Function in Birds. The Auk. 2006;123(2):575–86.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

56. 56. Sigouin A, Bélisle M, Garant D, Pelletier F. Agricultural pesticides and ectoparasites: potential combined effects on the physiology of a declining aerial insectivore. Conserv Physiol. 2021;9(1):coab025. pmid:33959290.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

57. 57. Jacobs AC, Fair JM. Bacteria-killing ability of fresh blood plasma compared to frozen blood plasma. Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol. 2016;191:115–8. pmid:26456418.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

58. 58. Millet S, Bennett J, Lee KA, Hau M, Klasing KC. Quantifying and comparing constitutive immunity across avian species. Dev Comp Immunol. 2007;31(2):188–201. pmid:16870251.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

59. 59. Becker DJ, Czirják GÁ, Rynda-Apple A, Plowright RK. Handling Stress and Sample Storage Are Associated with Weaker Complement-Mediated Bactericidal Ability in Birds but Not Bats. Physiol Biochem Zool. 2019;92(1):37–48. pmid:30481115.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

60. 60. Valdebenito JO, Halimubieke N, Lendvai ÁZ, Figuerola J, Eichhorn G, Székely T. Seasonal variation in sex-specific immunity in wild birds. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):1349. pmid:33446785.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

61. 61. Merrill L, Levinson SD, O’Loghlen AL, Wingfield JC, Rothstein SI. Bacteria-killing ability is negatively linked to epaulet size, but positively linked to baseline corticosterone, in male Red-winged Blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus). The Auk. 2014;131(1):3–11.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

62. 62. Merrill L, Ospina EA, Santymire RM, Benson TJ. Egg Incubation Temperature Affects Development of Innate Immune Function in Nestling American Robins (Turdus migratorius). Physiol Biochem Zool. 2020;93(1):1–12. pmid:31657970

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

63. 63. Fratto M, Ezenwa VO, Davis AK. Infection with Mycoplasma gallisepticum buffers the effects of acute stress on innate immunity in house finches. Physiol Biochem Zool. 2014;87(2):257–64. pmid:24642543.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

64. 64. Sato H, Ishii C, Nakayama SMM, Ichise T, Saito K, Watanabe Y, et al. Behavior and toxic effects of Pb in a waterfowl model with oral exposure to Pb shots: Investigating Pb exposure in wild birds. Environ Pollut. 2022;308:119580. pmid:35680064.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

65. 65. Grasman KA, Scanlon PF. Effects of acute lead ingestion and diet on antibody and T-cell-mediated immunity in Japanese quail. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 1995;28(2):161–7. pmid:7710288.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

66. 66. Pikula J, Hajkova P, Bandouchova H, Bednarova I, Adam V, Beklova M, et al. Lead toxicosis of captive vultures: case description and responses to chelation therapy. BMC Vet Res. 2013;9:11. pmid:23324224.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

67. 67. McDowell SK, Conway WC, Haukos DA, Moon JA, Comer CE, Hung I-K. Blood lead exposure concentrations in mottled ducks (Anas fulvigula) on the upper Texas coast. Journal of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 2015;2:221-8. Available online at: https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/70173744

* View Article

* Google Scholar

68. 68. Kearns B, McDowell S, Moon J, Rigby E, Conway WC, Haukos D. Distribution of contaminants in the environment and wildlife habitat use: a case study with lead and waterfowl on the Upper Texas Coast. Ecotoxicology. 2019;28(7):809–24. pmid:31325005.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

69. 69. Riecke TV, Conway WC, Haukos DA, Moon JA, Comer CE. Baseline Blood Pb Concentrations in Black-Necked Stilts on the Upper Texas Coast. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol. 2015;95(4):465–9. pmid:26253841.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

70. 70. Glassock GL, Grueber CE, Belov K, Hogg CJ. Reducing the Extinction Risk of Populations Threatened by Infectious Diseases. Diversity. 2021;13(2):63.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

71. 71. Taylor LU, Ronconi RA, Spina HA, Jones MEB, Ogbunugafor CB, Ayala AJ. Limited Outbreak of Highly Pathogenic Influenza A(H5N1) in Herring Gull Colony, Canada, 2022. Emerg Infect Dis. 2023;29(10):2150–4. pmid:37619593.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

72. 72. Ramey AM, Hill NJ, DeLiberto TJ, Gibbs SEJ, Camille Hopkins M, Lang AS, et al. Highly pathogenic avian influenza is an emerging disease threat to wild birds in North America. J Wildl Manag. 2022;86(2):.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

73. 73. Gamarra-Toledo V, Plaza PI, Angulo F, Gutiérrez R, García-Tello O, Saravia-Guevara P, et al. Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) strongly impacts wild birds in Peru. Biol Conserv. 2023;286: 110272.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

74. 74. Wille M, Barr IG. Resurgence of avian influenza virus. Science. 2022;376(6592):459–60. pmid:35471045.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

75. 75. Salyer JW. A Bow-Net Trap for Ducks. J Wildl Manage. 1962;26(2):219.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

76. 76. Bishop RA, Barratt R. Capturing Waterfowl in Iowa by Night-Lighting. J Wildl Manage. 1969;33(4):956.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

77. 77. Bielefeld RR, Cox JR. Survival and Cause-Specific Mortality of Adult Female Mottled Ducks in East-Central Florida. Wildl Soc Bull. 2006;34(2):388–94.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

78. 78. Hurlbert SH. Pseudoreplication and the Design of Ecological Field Experiments. Ecological Monographs. 1984;54(2):187–211.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

79. 79. Pyle P. Identification guide to North American birds. Part II: Anatidae to Alcidae. Point Reyes Station, CA: Slate Creek Press; 2008.

80. 80. Moon JA, Haukos DA, Conway WC. Seasonal survival of adult female mottled ducks. J Wildl Manag. 2017;81(3):461–9.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

81. 81. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Mottled Ducks. Waterfowl [Internet]. 2024 [Cited 2024 December 3]. Available from: https://myfwc.com/wildlifehabitats/profiles/birds/waterfowl/mottled-ducks/#:~:text=The%20male%20mottled%20duck%20has,underside%20of%20the%20female's%20bill

82. 82. Carney SM. Species, age, and sex identification of ducks using wing plumage: US Department of the Interior, US Fish and Wildlife Service; 1992.

83. 83. Pyle P. Molts and Plumages of Ducks (Anatinae). Waterbirds. 2005;28(2):208–19.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

84. 84. Adams H, Murray MH, Welch C, Kidd-Weaver A, Ellison T, Curry S, et al. Capturing American White Ibises in urban South Florida using two novel techniques. J Field Ornithol. 2019;90(4):373–81.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

85. 85. Fiorello C. Seabirds and Waterfowl. Exotic Animal Laboratory Diagnosis. 2020585–607.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

86. 86. Kramer MH, Harris DJ. Avian Blood Collection. Journal of Exotic Pet Medicine. 2010;19(1):82–6.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

87. 87. Bischoff K, Gaskill C, Erb HN, Ebel JG, Hillebrandt J. Comparison of two methods for blood lead analysis in cattle: graphite-furnace atomic absorption spectrometry and LeadCare(R) II system. J Vet Diagn Invest. 2010;22(5):729–33. pmid:20807929.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

88. 88. Owen JC. Collecting, processing, and storing avian blood: a review. Journal of Field Ornithology. 2011;82(4):339-54. PubMed PMID: 41409786.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

89. 89. Pacer EJ, Palmer CD, Parsons PJ. Determination of lead in blood by graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrometry with Zeeman background correction: Improving a well-established method to support a lower blood lead reference value for children. Spectrochimica Acta Part B: Atomic Spectroscopy. 2022;190:106324.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

90. 90. Parsons PJ, Slavin W. A rapid Zeeman graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrometric method for the determination of lead in blood. Spectrochimica Acta Part B: Atomic Spectroscopy. 1993;48(6–7):925–39.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

91. 91. Bischoff K, Hillebrandt J, Erb HN, Thompson B, Johns S. Comparison of blood and tissue lead concentrations from cattle with known lead exposure. Food Addit Contam Part A Chem Anal Control Expo Risk Assess. 2016;33(10):1563–9. pmid:27580661.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

92. 92. Leclaire S, Czirják GÁ, Hammouda A, Gasparini J. Feather bacterial load shapes the trade-off between preening and immunity in pigeons. BMC Evol Biol. 2015;15:60. pmid:25881311.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

93. 93. Saini C, Hutton P, Gao S, Simpson RK, Giraudeau M, Sepp T, et al. Exposure to artificial light at night increases innate immune activity during development in a precocial bird. Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol. 2019;233:84–8. pmid:30974186.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

94. 94. Brust V, Eikenaar C, Packmor F, Schmaljohann H, Hüppop O, Czirják GÁ. Do departure and flight route decisions correlate with immune parameters in migratory songbirds?. Functional Ecology. 2022;36(12):3007–21.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

95. 95. Chang van Oordt DA, Taff CC, Ryan TA, Vitousek MN. Timing of Breeding Reveals a Trade-Off between Immune Investment and Life History in Tree Swallows. Integr Comp Biol. 2022;62(6):1629–39. pmid:35561702.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

96. 96. Chang D. Ecological drivers of innate immune defense in a free-living migratory bird. Ph. D Thesis, Cornell University. 2023. https://doi.org/10.7298/ebm1-wm94

97. 97. Gao S, Sanchez C, Deviche PJ. Corticosterone rapidly suppresses innate immune activity in the house sparrow (Passer domesticus). J Exp Biol. 2017;220(Pt 2):322–7. pmid:27811298.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

98. 98. French SS, Neuman-Lee LA. Improved ex vivo method for microbiocidal activity across vertebrate species. Biol Open. 2012;1(5):482–7. pmid:23213440.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

99. 99. LaVere AA, Hamlin HJ, Lowers RH, Parrott BB, Ezenwa VO. Associations between testosterone and immune activity in alligators depend on bacteria species and temperature. Functional Ecology. 2021;35(5):1018–27.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

100. 100. Squadroni B, Newhard W, Carr D, Trinh H, Racine F, Zuck P, et al. Development of a fully automated platform for agar-based measurement of viable bacterial growth. SLAS Technol. 2022;27(4):247–52. pmid:35367399.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

101. 101. Steiner A, Raheem S, Ahmad Z. Significance of Leu and Ser in the βDELSEED-loop of Escherichia coli ATP synthase. Int J Biol Macromol. 2020;165(Pt B):2588–97. pmid:33736276.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

102. 102. R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. 2021. Available from: https://www.R-project.org/

103. 103. Croghan C, Egeghy P. Methods of dealing with values below the limit of detection using SAS. Southern SAS user group. 2003;22(24):22–4.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

104. 104. Herbers J, Miller R, Walther A, Schindler L, Schmidt K, Gao W, et al. How to deal with non-detectable and outlying values in biomarker research: Best practices and recommendations for univariate imputation approaches. Compr Psychoneuroendocrinol. 2021;7:100052. pmid:35757062.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

105. 105. Cullen A, Frey H. Probabilistic techniques in exposure assessment: a handbook for dealing with variability and uncertainty in models and inputs. 1999N/A. N/A

* View Article

* Google Scholar

106. 106. Shapiro SS, Wilk MB. An Analysis of Variance Test for Normality (Complete Samples). Biometrika. 1965;52(3/4):591.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

107. 107. Vatcheva KP, Lee M, McCormick JB, Rahbar MH. Multicollinearity in Regression Analyses Conducted in Epidemiologic Studies. Epidemiology (Sunnyvale). 2016;6(2):227. pmid:27274911.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

108. 108. Neggazi SA, Noreikiene K, Öst M, Jaatinen K. Reproductive investment is connected to innate immunity in a long-lived animal. Oecologia. 2016;182(2):347–56. pmid:27215635.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

109. 109. Ayala AJ, Ogbunugafor CB. When Vibrios Take Flight: A Meta-analysis of Pathogenic Vibrios Species in Wild and Domestic Birds. 2022.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

110. 110. Burgess BJ, Jackson MC, Murrell DJ. Are experiment sample sizes adequate to detect biologically important interactions between multiple stressors?. Ecol Evol. 2022;12(9):e9289. pmid:36177120.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

111. 111. Stallknecht DE. Impediments to Wildlife Disease Surveillance, Research, and Diagnostics. In: Childs JE, Mackenzie JS, Richt JA, editors. Wildlife and Emerging Zoonotic Diseases: The Biology, Circumstances and Consequences of Cross-Species Transmission. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2007. p. 445–61.

112. 112. NUSSER SM, CLARK WR, OTIS DL, HUANG L. Sampling Considerations for Disease Surveillance in Wildlife Populations. J Wildl Manag. 2008;72(1):52–60.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

113. 113. Dietert RR, Piepenbrink MS. Lead and immune function. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2006;36(4):359–85. pmid:16809103.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

114. 114. Knowles SO, Donaldson WE. Lead disrupts eicosanoid metabolism, macrophage function, and disease resistance in birds. Biol Trace Elem Res. 1997;60(1–2):13–26. pmid:9404672.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

115. 115. Fairbrother A, Smits J, Grasman K. Avian immunotoxicology. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 2004;7(2):105–37. pmid:14769546.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

116. 116. Noreen E, Bourgeon S, Bech C. Growing old with the immune system: a study of immunosenescence in the zebra finch (Taeniopygia guttata). J Comp Physiol B. 2011;181(5):649–56. pmid:21286728.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

117. 117. Palacios MJ, Valera F, Colominas-Ciuró R, Barbosa A. Cellular and humoral immunity in two highly demanding energetic life stages: reproduction and moulting in the Chinstrap Penguin. J Ornithol. 2017;159(1):283–90.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

118. 118. Hill SC, Manvell RJ, Schulenburg B, Shell W, Wikramaratna PS, Perrins C, et al. Antibody responses to avian influenza viruses in wild birds broaden with age. Proc Biol Sci. 2016;283(1845):20162159. pmid:28003449.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

119. 119. Buehler DM, Irene Tieleman B, Piersma T. Age and environment affect constitutive immune function in Red Knots (Calidris canutus). J Ornithol. 2009;150(4):815–25.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

120. 120. Bichet C, Moiron M, Matson KD, Vedder O, Bouwhuis S. Immunosenescence in the wild? A longitudinal study in a long-lived seabird. J Anim Ecol. 2022;91(2):458–69. pmid:34850397.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

121. 121. Matson KD, Ricklefs RE, Klasing KC. A hemolysis-hemagglutination assay for characterizing constitutive innate humoral immunity in wild and domestic birds. Dev Comp Immunol. 2005;29(3):275–86. pmid:15572075.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

122. 122. De Coster G, De Neve L, Martín-Gálvez D, Therry L, Lens L. Variation in innate immunity in relation to ectoparasite load, age and season: a field experiment in great tits (Parus major). J Exp Biol. 2010;213(Pt 17):3012–8. pmid:20709930.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

123. 123. Carmichael NG, Winder C, Lewis PD. Dose response relationships during perinatal lead administration in the rat: a model for the study of lead effects on brain development. Toxicology. 1981;21(2):117–28. pmid:7281200.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

124. 124. Murphy M. Energetics and nutrition of molt. Avian Energetics And Nutritional Ecology. 1996;158–98.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

125. 125. Schieltz PC, Murphy ME. The contribution of insulation changes to the energy cost of avian molt. Can J Zool. 1997;75(3):396–400.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

126. 126. Fox A, Flint P, Hohman W, Savard J-P. Waterfowl habitat use and selection during the remigial moult period in the northern hemisphere. Wildfowl. 2014;131–68. Available from: https://wildfowl.wwt.org.uk/index.php/wildfowl/article/view/2605

127. 127. Martin II LB. Trade-offs between molt and immune activity in two populations of house sparrows (Passer domesticus). Can J Zool. 2005;83(6):780–7.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

128. 128. Moreno J, Sanz J, Merino S, Arriero E. Daily energy expenditure and cell-mediated immunity in pied flycatchers while feeding nestlings: interaction with moult. Oecologia. 2001;129(4):492–7. pmid:24577688.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

129. 129. Moorman TE, Baldassarre GA, Richard DM. Carcass mass, composition and gut morphology dynamics of Mottled Ducks in fall and winter in Louisiana. The Condor. 1992;94(2):407–17.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

130. 130. Friend M, Hurley JW, Nol P, Wesenberg K. Disease emergence and resurgence — the wildlife-human connection. Circular. 2006.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

131. 131. Friend M. Why bother about wildlife disease?. Circular. 2014.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

132. 132. Friend M, McLean RG, Joshua Dein F. Disease Emergence in Birds: Challenges for the Twenty-First Century. The Auk. 2001;118(2):290–303.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

133. 133. Smith KF, Acevedo‐Whitehouse K, Pedersen AB. The role of infectious diseases in biological conservation. Anim Conserv. 2009;12(1):1–12.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

134. 134. Lyles A, Dobson A. Infectious disease and intensive management: population dynamics, threatened hosts, and their parasites. J Zoo Wildl Med. n.d.315–26.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

135. 135. Archer EJ, Baker-Austin C, Osborn TJ, Jones NR, Martínez-Urtaza J, Trinanes J, et al. Climate warming and increasing Vibrio vulnificus infections in North America. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):3893. pmid:36959189.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

136. 136. Baker-Austin C, Trinanes J, Gonzalez-Escalona N, Martinez-Urtaza J. Non-cholera vibrios: The microbial barometer of climate change. Trends Microbiol. 2017;25(1):76–84. pmid:27843109.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

137. 137. Deeb R, Tufford D, Scott GI, Moore JG, Dow K. Impact of climate change on Vibrio vulnificus abundance and exposure risk. Estuaries Coast. 2018;41(8):2289–303. pmid:31263385.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

138. 138. Froelich BA, Daines DA. In hot water: Effects of climate change on Vibrio-human interactions. Environ Microbiol. 2020;22(10):4101–11. pmid:32114705.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

139. 139. Papkou A, Schalkowski R, Barg M-C, Koepper S, Schulenburg H. Population size impacts host-pathogen coevolution. Proc Biol Sci. 2021;288(1965):20212269. pmid:34905713.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

140. 140. Tellería JL, Hera IDL, Perez-Tris J. Morphological variation as a tool for monitoring bird populations: A review. Ardeola. 2013;60(2):191–224.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

141. 141. Loos ER, Rohwer FC. Efficiency of nest traps and long-handled nets for capturing upland nesting ducks. Wildl Soc Bull. 2002;30(4):1202–7.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

142. 142. Sabater González M, Calvo Carrasco D. Emergencies and Critical Care of Commonly Kept Fowl. Vet Clin North Am Exot Anim Pract. 2016;19(2):543–65. pmid:26948266.

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

143. 143. Wobeser GA. Diseases of wild waterfowl: Springer Science & Business Media; 1997.

Citation: Ayala AJ, Cheng M, Hellinger TA, McBride KM, Webb J, Fanning A, et al. (2025) Wild Florida mottled ducks demonstrate strong heterogeneity in their humoral innate immune response. PLoS ONE 20(3): e0312653. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312653

About the Authors:

Andrea J. Ayala

Roles: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Department of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire, United States of America

ORICD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1941-3716

Matthew Cheng

Roles: Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations: Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America, Section of Hematology, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale Comprehensive Cancer Center, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America

Thomas A. Hellinger

Roles: Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations: Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America, Department of Biological Sciences, College of Sciences, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, United States of America

K. Mark McBride

Roles: Data curation, Investigation, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fellsmere, Florida, United States of America, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Game Species Section, Wildlife and Forestry Division, Nashville, Tennessee, United States of America

Jonathan Webb

Roles: Data curation, Investigation, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fellsmere, Florida, United States of America

Andrew Fanning

Roles: Investigation, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, Florida, United States of America

Paul Snyder

Roles: Investigation, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America

Margherita Ferragamo

Roles: Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations: Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America, Department of Biological Sciences, College of Sciences, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, United States of America

Samantha C. Garcia

Roles: Investigation, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America

Nyah Sterner

Roles: Investigation, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations: Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America, Department of Biological Sciences, College of Sciences, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, United States of America

Karyn L. Bischoff

Roles: Investigation, Resources, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Department of Population Medicine and Diagnostic Sciences, Cornell University and New York State Animal Health Diagnostic Center, Ithaca, New York, United States of America

Salvador Almagro-Moreno

Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations: Burnett School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, United States of America, National Center for Integrated Coastal Research, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, United States of America

C. Brandon Ogbunugafor

Roles: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliations: Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America, Public Health Modeling Unit, Yale School of Public Health, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America, Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, New Mexico, United States of America

ORICD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1581-8345

[/RAW_REF_TEXT]

[/RAW_REF_TEXT]

[/RAW_REF_TEXT]

[/RAW_REF_TEXT]

[/RAW_REF_TEXT]

[/RAW_REF_TEXT]

[/RAW_REF_TEXT]

[/RAW_REF_TEXT]

[/RAW_REF_TEXT]

[/RAW_REF_TEXT]

[/RAW_REF_TEXT]

[/RAW_REF_TEXT]

References

1. Bielefeld RR, Garrettson PR, Dooley JL. Variation in Survival and Harvest Rates in Florida Mottled Duck. J Wildl Manag. 2020;84(8):1515–26.

2. XXX

3. Varner DM, Hepp GR, Bielefeld RR. Movements and seasonal use of habitats by rural and urban female mottled ducks in southeast Florida. J Wildl Manag. 2014;78(5):840–7.

4. Johnson FA, III FM, Truitt JD, Eggeman DR. Distribution, Abundance, and Habitat Use by Mottled Ducks in Florida. J Wildl Manage. 1991;55(3):476.

5. Varner DM, Bielefeld RR, Hepp GR. Nesting ecology of Florida mottled ducks using altered habitats. Jour Wild Mgmt. 2013;77(5):1002–9.

6. Avery ML, Moulton MP. Florida’s non-native avifauna. In: Witmer GW, Pitt WC, Fagerstone KA, editors. Managing vertebrate invasive species: proceedings of an international symposium; 2007 Aug 7-9; USDA/APHIS Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. p. 365–377. Available from: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=nwrcinvasive

7. Lavretsky P, Mohl JE, Söderquist P, Kraus RHS, Schummer ML, Brown JI. The meaning of wild: Genetic and adaptive consequences from large-scale releases of domestic mallards. Commun Biol. 2023;6(1):819. pmid:37543640

8. Drilling N, Titman R, McKinney F. Mallard. Birds of the World. 2020. Available from: https://birdsoftheworld.org/bow/species/mallar3/cur/introduction

9. Peters JL, Lavretsky P, DaCosta JM, Bielefeld RR, Feddersen JC, Sorenson MD. Population genomic data delineate conservation units in mottled ducks (Anas fulvigula). Biol Conserv. 2016;203272–81.

10. Levy K, Smith SM, Carlton EJ. Climate Change Impacts on Waterborne Diseases: Moving Toward Designing Interventions. Curr Environ Health Rep. 2018;5(2):272–82. pmid:29721700

11. Semenza JC. Cascading risks of waterborne diseases from climate change. Nat Immunol. 2020;21(5):484–7. pmid:32313241

12. Cox M. Prevalence of Vibrio species in waterfowl of Jefferson County, Texas. M.Sc. Thesis. Lamar University. 1992. Available from: https://www.proquest.com/docview/304032726?sourcetype=Dissertations%20&%20Theses

13. Ayala AJ, Ogbunugafor CB. When Vibrios Take Flight: A Meta-Analysis of Pathogenic Vibrio Species in Wild and Domestic Birds. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2023;1404:295–336. pmid:36792882

14. Ayala AJ, Kabengele K, Almagro-Moreno S, Ogbunugafor CB. Meteorological associations of Vibrio vulnificus clinical infections in tropical settings: Correlations with air pressure, wind speed, and temperature. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2023;17(7):e0011461. pmid:37410780

15. Balasubramanian D, López-Pérez M, Grant T-A, Ogbunugafor CB, Almagro-Moreno S. Molecular mechanisms and drivers of pathogen emergence. Trends Microbiol. 2022;30(9):898–911. pmid:35248462.

16. Rollo SN, Ferro PJ, Peterson MJ, Ward MP, Ballard BM, Lupiani B. Role of nonmigratory mottled ducks (Anas fulvigula) as sentinels for avian influenza surveillance. J Zoo Wildl Med. 2012;43(1):168–70. pmid:22448526.

17. Matson KD, Tieleman BI, Klasing KC. Capture stress and the bactericidal competence of blood and plasma in five species of tropical birds. Physiol Biochem Zool. 2006;79(3):556–64. pmid:16691521.

18. Chang van Oordt DA, Taff CC, Pipkin MA, Ryan TA, Vitousek MN. Experimentally elevated corticosterone does not affect bacteria killing ability of breeding female tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor). Horm Behav. 2024;160:105500. pmid:38316079.

19. Tieleman BI, Croese E, Helm B, Versteegh MA. Repeatability and individual correlates of microbicidal capacity of bird blood. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Molecular & Integrative Physiology. 2010;156(4):537–40. PMID: 38316079

20. Schmitt C, Garant D, Bélisle M, Pelletier F. Agricultural Intensification Is Linked to Constitutive Innate Immune Function in a Wild Bird Population. Physiol Biochem Zool. 2017;90(2):201–9. pmid:28277952.

21. Kophamel S, Illing B, Ariel E, Difalco M, Skerratt LF, Hamann M, et al. Importance of health assessments for conservation in noncaptive wildlife. Conserv Biol. 2022;36(1):e13724. pmid:33634525.

22. Redford KH, Amato G, Baillie J, Beldomenico P, Bennett EL, Clum N, et al. What Does It Mean to Successfully Conserve a (Vertebrate) Species?. BioScience. 2011;61(1):39–48.

23. Juul-Madsen HR, Viertlboeck B, Smith AL, Göbel TWF. Avian innate immune responses. Avian Immunol. 2008129–58.

24. Girard J, Goldberg TL, Hamer GL. Field investigation of innate immunity in passerine birds in suburban Chicago, Illinois, USA. J Wildl Dis. 2011;47(3):603–11. pmid:21719824.

25. Bonneaud C, Balenger SL, Zhang J, Edwards SV, Hill GE. Innate immunity and the evolution of resistance to an emerging infectious disease in a wild bird. Mol Ecol. 2012;21(11):2628–39. pmid:22512302.

26. Riera Romo M, Pérez-Martínez D, Castillo Ferrer C. Innate immunity in vertebrates: an overview. Immunology. 2016;148(2):125–39. pmid:26878338.

27. Chen S, Cheng A, Wang M. Innate sensing of viruses by pattern recognition receptors in birds. Vet Res. 2013;44(1):82. pmid:24016341

28. Boehm T. Evolution of vertebrate immunity. Curr Biol. 2012;22(17):R722-32. pmid:22975003.

29. Boehm T, Swann JB. Origin and evolution of adaptive immunity. Annu Rev Anim Biosci. 2014;2:259–83. pmid:25384143.

30. Hasselquist D, Nilsson J-Å. Physiological mechanisms mediating costs of immune responses: what can we learn from studies of birds?. Anim Behav. 2012;83(6):1303–12.

31. Hasselquist D. Comparative immunoecology in birds: hypotheses and tests. J Ornithol. 2007;148(S2):571–82.

32. Irene Tieleman B, Williams JB, Ricklefs RE, Klasing KC. Constitutive innate immunity is a component of the pace-of-life syndrome in tropical birds. Proc Biol Sci. 2005;272(1573):1715–20. pmid:16087427

33. Vermeulen A, Eens M, Van Dongen S, Müller W. Does baseline innate immunity change with age? A multi-year study in great tits. Exp Gerontol. 2017;92:67–73. pmid:28315788

34. Stambaugh T, Houdek BJ, Lombardo MP, Thorpe PA, Caldwell Hahn D. Innate immune response development in nestling tree swallows. Wilson J Ornithol. 2011;123(4):779–87.

35. Wilcoxen TE, Boughton RK, Schoech SJ. Selection on innate immunity and body condition in Florida scrub-jays throughout an epidemic. Biol Lett. 2010;6(4):552–4. pmid:20164081.

36. Bauerová P, Vinklerová J, Hraníček J, Čorba V, Vojtek L, Svobodová J, et al. Associations of urban environmental pollution with health-related physiological traits in a free-living bird species. Sci Total Environ. 2017;601–6021556–65. pmid:28605873.

37. Vallverdú-Coll N, Mateo R, Mougeot F, Ortiz-Santaliestra ME. Immunotoxic effects of lead on birds. Sci Total Environ. 2019;689:505–15. pmid:31279197.

38. Franson JC, Pain DJ. Environmental Contaminants in Biota: Interpreting Tissue Concentrations, Second Edition. In: Beyer WN, Meador JP, editors. Lead in Birds. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2011. pp. 563–583. Available from: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/reader/read-online/09fdb1ea-923e-42f6-afda-ef651f279c96/chapter/pdf?context=ubx

39. Snoeijs T, Dauwe T, Pinxten R, Darras VM, Arckens L, Eens M. The combined effect of lead exposure and high or low dietary calcium on health and immunocompetence in the zebra finch (Taeniopygia guttata). Environ Pollut. 2005;134(1):123–32. pmid:15572230

40. Pikula J, Bandouchova H, Hilscherova K, Paskova V, Sedlackova J, Adamovsky O, et al. Combined exposure to cyanobacterial biomass, lead and the Newcastle virus enhances avian toxicity. Sci Total Environ. 2010;408(21):4984–92. pmid:20701952

41. Vallverdú-Coll N, Mougeot F, Ortiz-Santaliestra ME, Rodriguez-Estival J, López-Antia A, Mateo R. Lead exposure reduces carotenoid-based coloration and constitutive immunity in wild mallards. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2016;35(6):1516–25. pmid:26551027

42. Thomas VG. Harmonizing approval of nontoxic shot and sinkers in North America. Wildl Soc Bull. 2003.292–5.

43. Michaels RA. Legacy Contaminants of Emerging Concern: Lead (Pb), Flint (MI), and Human Health. Environ Claims J. 2019;32(1):6–45.

44. Spears BL, Hansen JA, Audet DJ. Blood lead concentrations in waterfowl utilizing Lake Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 2007;52(1):121–8. pmid:17082999.

45. Franson JC, Hansen SP, Creekmore TE, Brand CJ, Evers DC, Duerr AE, et al. Lead Fishing Weights and Other Fishing Tackle in Selected Waterbirds. Waterbirds. 2003;26(3):345–52.

46. Williams RJ, Holladay SD, Williams SM, Gogal RM . Environmental Lead and Wild Birds: A Review. In: de Voogt P, editor. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology Volume 245. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018. p. 157–180.

47. Sanderson GC, Bellrose FC. A review of the problem of lead poisoning in waterfowl. 1986. Available from: https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/items/119502

48. Mateo R, Belliure J, Dolz J, Aguilar Serrano JM, Guitart R. High Prevalences of Lead Poisoning in Wintering Waterfowl in Spain. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 1998;35(2):342–7. pmid:9680527.

49. Lewis NL, Nichols TC, Lilley C, Roscoe DE, Lovy J. Blood Lead Declines in Wintering American Black Ducks in New Jersey Following the Lead Shot Ban. J Fish Wildl Manage. 2021;12(1):174–82.

50. Eikenaar C, Isaksson C, Hegemann A. A hidden cost of migration? Innate immune function versus antioxidant defense. Ecol Evol. 2018;8(5):2721–8. pmid:29531689.

51. Norris K. Ecological immunology: life history trade-offs and immune defense in birds. Behav Ecol. 2000;11(1):19–26.

52. Lochmiller RL, Deerenberg C. Trade‐offs in evolutionary immunology: just what is the cost of immunity?. Oikos. 2000;88(1):87–98.

53. Zhang W, Sun H, Su R, Wang S. Fat rather than health - Ecotoxic responses of Bufo raddei to environmental heavy metal stress during the non-breeding season. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2022;244:114040. pmid:36055043.

54. Merrill L, González-Gómez PL, Ellis VA, Levin II, Vásquez RA, Wingfield JC. A blurring of life-history lines: Immune function, molt and reproduction in a highly stable environment. Gen Comp Endocrinol. 2015;213:65–73. pmid:25712433.

55. Salvante KG. Techniques for Studying Integrated Immune Function in Birds. The Auk. 2006;123(2):575–86.

56. Sigouin A, Bélisle M, Garant D, Pelletier F. Agricultural pesticides and ectoparasites: potential combined effects on the physiology of a declining aerial insectivore. Conserv Physiol. 2021;9(1):coab025. pmid:33959290.

57. Jacobs AC, Fair JM. Bacteria-killing ability of fresh blood plasma compared to frozen blood plasma. Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol. 2016;191:115–8. pmid:26456418.

58. Millet S, Bennett J, Lee KA, Hau M, Klasing KC. Quantifying and comparing constitutive immunity across avian species. Dev Comp Immunol. 2007;31(2):188–201. pmid:16870251.

59. Becker DJ, Czirják GÁ, Rynda-Apple A, Plowright RK. Handling Stress and Sample Storage Are Associated with Weaker Complement-Mediated Bactericidal Ability in Birds but Not Bats. Physiol Biochem Zool. 2019;92(1):37–48. pmid:30481115.

60. Valdebenito JO, Halimubieke N, Lendvai ÁZ, Figuerola J, Eichhorn G, Székely T. Seasonal variation in sex-specific immunity in wild birds. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):1349. pmid:33446785.

61. Merrill L, Levinson SD, O’Loghlen AL, Wingfield JC, Rothstein SI. Bacteria-killing ability is negatively linked to epaulet size, but positively linked to baseline corticosterone, in male Red-winged Blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus). The Auk. 2014;131(1):3–11.

62. Merrill L, Ospina EA, Santymire RM, Benson TJ. Egg Incubation Temperature Affects Development of Innate Immune Function in Nestling American Robins (Turdus migratorius). Physiol Biochem Zool. 2020;93(1):1–12. pmid:31657970

63. Fratto M, Ezenwa VO, Davis AK. Infection with Mycoplasma gallisepticum buffers the effects of acute stress on innate immunity in house finches. Physiol Biochem Zool. 2014;87(2):257–64. pmid:24642543.

64. Sato H, Ishii C, Nakayama SMM, Ichise T, Saito K, Watanabe Y, et al. Behavior and toxic effects of Pb in a waterfowl model with oral exposure to Pb shots: Investigating Pb exposure in wild birds. Environ Pollut. 2022;308:119580. pmid:35680064.

65. Grasman KA, Scanlon PF. Effects of acute lead ingestion and diet on antibody and T-cell-mediated immunity in Japanese quail. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 1995;28(2):161–7. pmid:7710288.

66. Pikula J, Hajkova P, Bandouchova H, Bednarova I, Adam V, Beklova M, et al. Lead toxicosis of captive vultures: case description and responses to chelation therapy. BMC Vet Res. 2013;9:11. pmid:23324224.

67. McDowell SK, Conway WC, Haukos DA, Moon JA, Comer CE, Hung I-K. Blood lead exposure concentrations in mottled ducks (Anas fulvigula) on the upper Texas coast. Journal of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 2015;2:221-8. Available online at: https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/70173744

68. Kearns B, McDowell S, Moon J, Rigby E, Conway WC, Haukos D. Distribution of contaminants in the environment and wildlife habitat use: a case study with lead and waterfowl on the Upper Texas Coast. Ecotoxicology. 2019;28(7):809–24. pmid:31325005.

69. Riecke TV, Conway WC, Haukos DA, Moon JA, Comer CE. Baseline Blood Pb Concentrations in Black-Necked Stilts on the Upper Texas Coast. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol. 2015;95(4):465–9. pmid:26253841.

70. Glassock GL, Grueber CE, Belov K, Hogg CJ. Reducing the Extinction Risk of Populations Threatened by Infectious Diseases. Diversity. 2021;13(2):63.

71. Taylor LU, Ronconi RA, Spina HA, Jones MEB, Ogbunugafor CB, Ayala AJ. Limited Outbreak of Highly Pathogenic Influenza A(H5N1) in Herring Gull Colony, Canada, 2022. Emerg Infect Dis. 2023;29(10):2150–4. pmid:37619593.

72. Ramey AM, Hill NJ, DeLiberto TJ, Gibbs SEJ, Camille Hopkins M, Lang AS, et al. Highly pathogenic avian influenza is an emerging disease threat to wild birds in North America. J Wildl Manag. 2022;86(2):.

73. Gamarra-Toledo V, Plaza PI, Angulo F, Gutiérrez R, García-Tello O, Saravia-Guevara P, et al. Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) strongly impacts wild birds in Peru. Biol Conserv. 2023;286: 110272.

74. Wille M, Barr IG. Resurgence of avian influenza virus. Science. 2022;376(6592):459–60. pmid:35471045.

75. Salyer JW. A Bow-Net Trap for Ducks. J Wildl Manage. 1962;26(2):219.

76. Bishop RA, Barratt R. Capturing Waterfowl in Iowa by Night-Lighting. J Wildl Manage. 1969;33(4):956.

77. Bielefeld RR, Cox JR. Survival and Cause-Specific Mortality of Adult Female Mottled Ducks in East-Central Florida. Wildl Soc Bull. 2006;34(2):388–94.

78. Hurlbert SH. Pseudoreplication and the Design of Ecological Field Experiments. Ecological Monographs. 1984;54(2):187–211.

79. Pyle P. Identification guide to North American birds. Part II: Anatidae to Alcidae. Point Reyes Station, CA: Slate Creek Press; 2008.

80. Moon JA, Haukos DA, Conway WC. Seasonal survival of adult female mottled ducks. J Wildl Manag. 2017;81(3):461–9.

81. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Mottled Ducks. Waterfowl [Internet]. 2024 [Cited 2024 December 3]. Available from: https://myfwc.com/wildlifehabitats/profiles/birds/waterfowl/mottled-ducks/#:~:text=The%20male%20mottled%20duck%20has,underside%20of%20the%20female's%20bill

82. Carney SM. Species, age, and sex identification of ducks using wing plumage: US Department of the Interior, US Fish and Wildlife Service; 1992.

83. Pyle P. Molts and Plumages of Ducks (Anatinae). Waterbirds. 2005;28(2):208–19.

84. Adams H, Murray MH, Welch C, Kidd-Weaver A, Ellison T, Curry S, et al. Capturing American White Ibises in urban South Florida using two novel techniques. J Field Ornithol. 2019;90(4):373–81.

85. Fiorello C. Seabirds and Waterfowl. Exotic Animal Laboratory Diagnosis. 2020585–607.

86. Kramer MH, Harris DJ. Avian Blood Collection. Journal of Exotic Pet Medicine. 2010;19(1):82–6.

87. Bischoff K, Gaskill C, Erb HN, Ebel JG, Hillebrandt J. Comparison of two methods for blood lead analysis in cattle: graphite-furnace atomic absorption spectrometry and LeadCare(R) II system. J Vet Diagn Invest. 2010;22(5):729–33. pmid:20807929.

88. Owen JC. Collecting, processing, and storing avian blood: a review. Journal of Field Ornithology. 2011;82(4):339-54. PubMed PMID: 41409786.

89. Pacer EJ, Palmer CD, Parsons PJ. Determination of lead in blood by graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrometry with Zeeman background correction: Improving a well-established method to support a lower blood lead reference value for children. Spectrochimica Acta Part B: Atomic Spectroscopy. 2022;190:106324.

90. Parsons PJ, Slavin W. A rapid Zeeman graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrometric method for the determination of lead in blood. Spectrochimica Acta Part B: Atomic Spectroscopy. 1993;48(6–7):925–39.

91. Bischoff K, Hillebrandt J, Erb HN, Thompson B, Johns S. Comparison of blood and tissue lead concentrations from cattle with known lead exposure. Food Addit Contam Part A Chem Anal Control Expo Risk Assess. 2016;33(10):1563–9. pmid:27580661.

92. Leclaire S, Czirják GÁ, Hammouda A, Gasparini J. Feather bacterial load shapes the trade-off between preening and immunity in pigeons. BMC Evol Biol. 2015;15:60. pmid:25881311.

93. Saini C, Hutton P, Gao S, Simpson RK, Giraudeau M, Sepp T, et al. Exposure to artificial light at night increases innate immune activity during development in a precocial bird. Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol. 2019;233:84–8. pmid:30974186.

94. Brust V, Eikenaar C, Packmor F, Schmaljohann H, Hüppop O, Czirják GÁ. Do departure and flight route decisions correlate with immune parameters in migratory songbirds?. Functional Ecology. 2022;36(12):3007–21.

95. Chang van Oordt DA, Taff CC, Ryan TA, Vitousek MN. Timing of Breeding Reveals a Trade-Off between Immune Investment and Life History in Tree Swallows. Integr Comp Biol. 2022;62(6):1629–39. pmid:35561702.

96. Chang D. Ecological drivers of innate immune defense in a free-living migratory bird. Ph. D Thesis, Cornell University. 2023. https://doi.org/10.7298/ebm1-wm94

97. Gao S, Sanchez C, Deviche PJ. Corticosterone rapidly suppresses innate immune activity in the house sparrow (Passer domesticus). J Exp Biol. 2017;220(Pt 2):322–7. pmid:27811298.

98. French SS, Neuman-Lee LA. Improved ex vivo method for microbiocidal activity across vertebrate species. Biol Open. 2012;1(5):482–7. pmid:23213440.

99. LaVere AA, Hamlin HJ, Lowers RH, Parrott BB, Ezenwa VO. Associations between testosterone and immune activity in alligators depend on bacteria species and temperature. Functional Ecology. 2021;35(5):1018–27.

100. Squadroni B, Newhard W, Carr D, Trinh H, Racine F, Zuck P, et al. Development of a fully automated platform for agar-based measurement of viable bacterial growth. SLAS Technol. 2022;27(4):247–52. pmid:35367399.

101. Steiner A, Raheem S, Ahmad Z. Significance of Leu and Ser in the βDELSEED-loop of Escherichia coli ATP synthase. Int J Biol Macromol. 2020;165(Pt B):2588–97. pmid:33736276.

102. R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. 2021. Available from: https://www.R-project.org/

103. Croghan C, Egeghy P. Methods of dealing with values below the limit of detection using SAS. Southern SAS user group. 2003;22(24):22–4.

104. Herbers J, Miller R, Walther A, Schindler L, Schmidt K, Gao W, et al. How to deal with non-detectable and outlying values in biomarker research: Best practices and recommendations for univariate imputation approaches. Compr Psychoneuroendocrinol. 2021;7:100052. pmid:35757062.

105. Cullen A, Frey H. Probabilistic techniques in exposure assessment: a handbook for dealing with variability and uncertainty in models and inputs. 1999N/A. N/A

106. Shapiro SS, Wilk MB. An Analysis of Variance Test for Normality (Complete Samples). Biometrika. 1965;52(3/4):591.

107. Vatcheva KP, Lee M, McCormick JB, Rahbar MH. Multicollinearity in Regression Analyses Conducted in Epidemiologic Studies. Epidemiology (Sunnyvale). 2016;6(2):227. pmid:27274911.

108. Neggazi SA, Noreikiene K, Öst M, Jaatinen K. Reproductive investment is connected to innate immunity in a long-lived animal. Oecologia. 2016;182(2):347–56. pmid:27215635.

109. Ayala AJ, Ogbunugafor CB. When Vibrios Take Flight: A Meta-analysis of Pathogenic Vibrios Species in Wild and Domestic Birds. 2022.

110. Burgess BJ, Jackson MC, Murrell DJ. Are experiment sample sizes adequate to detect biologically important interactions between multiple stressors?. Ecol Evol. 2022;12(9):e9289. pmid:36177120.

111. Stallknecht DE. Impediments to Wildlife Disease Surveillance, Research, and Diagnostics. In: Childs JE, Mackenzie JS, Richt JA, editors. Wildlife and Emerging Zoonotic Diseases: The Biology, Circumstances and Consequences of Cross-Species Transmission. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2007. p. 445–61.

112. NUSSER SM, CLARK WR, OTIS DL, HUANG L. Sampling Considerations for Disease Surveillance in Wildlife Populations. J Wildl Manag. 2008;72(1):52–60.

113. Dietert RR, Piepenbrink MS. Lead and immune function. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2006;36(4):359–85. pmid:16809103.

114. Knowles SO, Donaldson WE. Lead disrupts eicosanoid metabolism, macrophage function, and disease resistance in birds. Biol Trace Elem Res. 1997;60(1–2):13–26. pmid:9404672.

115. Fairbrother A, Smits J, Grasman K. Avian immunotoxicology. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 2004;7(2):105–37. pmid:14769546.

116. Noreen E, Bourgeon S, Bech C. Growing old with the immune system: a study of immunosenescence in the zebra finch (Taeniopygia guttata). J Comp Physiol B. 2011;181(5):649–56. pmid:21286728.

117. Palacios MJ, Valera F, Colominas-Ciuró R, Barbosa A. Cellular and humoral immunity in two highly demanding energetic life stages: reproduction and moulting in the Chinstrap Penguin. J Ornithol. 2017;159(1):283–90.

118. Hill SC, Manvell RJ, Schulenburg B, Shell W, Wikramaratna PS, Perrins C, et al. Antibody responses to avian influenza viruses in wild birds broaden with age. Proc Biol Sci. 2016;283(1845):20162159. pmid:28003449.

119. Buehler DM, Irene Tieleman B, Piersma T. Age and environment affect constitutive immune function in Red Knots (Calidris canutus). J Ornithol. 2009;150(4):815–25.

120. Bichet C, Moiron M, Matson KD, Vedder O, Bouwhuis S. Immunosenescence in the wild? A longitudinal study in a long-lived seabird. J Anim Ecol. 2022;91(2):458–69. pmid:34850397.

121. Matson KD, Ricklefs RE, Klasing KC. A hemolysis-hemagglutination assay for characterizing constitutive innate humoral immunity in wild and domestic birds. Dev Comp Immunol. 2005;29(3):275–86. pmid:15572075.

122. De Coster G, De Neve L, Martín-Gálvez D, Therry L, Lens L. Variation in innate immunity in relation to ectoparasite load, age and season: a field experiment in great tits (Parus major). J Exp Biol. 2010;213(Pt 17):3012–8. pmid:20709930.

123. Carmichael NG, Winder C, Lewis PD. Dose response relationships during perinatal lead administration in the rat: a model for the study of lead effects on brain development. Toxicology. 1981;21(2):117–28. pmid:7281200.

124. Murphy M. Energetics and nutrition of molt. Avian Energetics And Nutritional Ecology. 1996;158–98.

125. Schieltz PC, Murphy ME. The contribution of insulation changes to the energy cost of avian molt. Can J Zool. 1997;75(3):396–400.

126. Fox A, Flint P, Hohman W, Savard J-P. Waterfowl habitat use and selection during the remigial moult period in the northern hemisphere. Wildfowl. 2014;131–68. Available from: https://wildfowl.wwt.org.uk/index.php/wildfowl/article/view/2605

127. Martin II LB. Trade-offs between molt and immune activity in two populations of house sparrows (Passer domesticus). Can J Zool. 2005;83(6):780–7.

128. Moreno J, Sanz J, Merino S, Arriero E. Daily energy expenditure and cell-mediated immunity in pied flycatchers while feeding nestlings: interaction with moult. Oecologia. 2001;129(4):492–7. pmid:24577688.

129. Moorman TE, Baldassarre GA, Richard DM. Carcass mass, composition and gut morphology dynamics of Mottled Ducks in fall and winter in Louisiana. The Condor. 1992;94(2):407–17.

130. Friend M, Hurley JW, Nol P, Wesenberg K. Disease emergence and resurgence — the wildlife-human connection. Circular. 2006.

131. Friend M. Why bother about wildlife disease?. Circular. 2014.

132. Friend M, McLean RG, Joshua Dein F. Disease Emergence in Birds: Challenges for the Twenty-First Century. The Auk. 2001;118(2):290–303.

133. Smith KF, Acevedo‐Whitehouse K, Pedersen AB. The role of infectious diseases in biological conservation. Anim Conserv. 2009;12(1):1–12.

134. Lyles A, Dobson A. Infectious disease and intensive management: population dynamics, threatened hosts, and their parasites. J Zoo Wildl Med. n.d.315–26.

135. Archer EJ, Baker-Austin C, Osborn TJ, Jones NR, Martínez-Urtaza J, Trinanes J, et al. Climate warming and increasing Vibrio vulnificus infections in North America. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):3893. pmid:36959189.

136. Baker-Austin C, Trinanes J, Gonzalez-Escalona N, Martinez-Urtaza J. Non-cholera vibrios: The microbial barometer of climate change. Trends Microbiol. 2017;25(1):76–84. pmid:27843109.

137. Deeb R, Tufford D, Scott GI, Moore JG, Dow K. Impact of climate change on Vibrio vulnificus abundance and exposure risk. Estuaries Coast. 2018;41(8):2289–303. pmid:31263385.

138. Froelich BA, Daines DA. In hot water: Effects of climate change on Vibrio-human interactions. Environ Microbiol. 2020;22(10):4101–11. pmid:32114705.

139. Papkou A, Schalkowski R, Barg M-C, Koepper S, Schulenburg H. Population size impacts host-pathogen coevolution. Proc Biol Sci. 2021;288(1965):20212269. pmid:34905713.

140. Tellería JL, Hera IDL, Perez-Tris J. Morphological variation as a tool for monitoring bird populations: A review. Ardeola. 2013;60(2):191–224.

141. Loos ER, Rohwer FC. Efficiency of nest traps and long-handled nets for capturing upland nesting ducks. Wildl Soc Bull. 2002;30(4):1202–7.

142. Sabater González M, Calvo Carrasco D. Emergencies and Critical Care of Commonly Kept Fowl. Vet Clin North Am Exot Anim Pract. 2016;19(2):543–65. pmid:26948266.

143. Wobeser GA. Diseases of wild waterfowl: Springer Science & Business Media; 1997.