Wight et al. Veterinary Research (2024) 55:154 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13567-024-01397-5 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access © The Author(s) 2024. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ publi cdoma in/ zero/1. 0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. Veterinary Research Avian influenza virus circulation and immunity in a wild urban duck population prior to and during a highly pathogenic H5N1 outbreak Jordan Wight1 , Ishraq Rahman1 , Hannah L. Wallace2 , Joshua T. Cunningham3 , Sheena Roul1, Gregory J. Robertson3 , Rodney S. Russell2 , Wanhong Xu4 , Dmytro Zhmendak4, Tamiru N. Alkie4, Yohannes Berhane4,5,6 , Kathryn E. Hargan1 and Andrew S. Lang1* Abstract Highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) H5N1 clade 2.3.4.4b viruses were first detected in St. John’s, Canada in late 2021. To investigate the patterns of avian influenza virus (AIV) infection and immune responses subse- quent to the arrival of H5N1, we sampled the wild urban duck population in this area for a period of 16 months after the start of the outbreak and compared these findings to those from archived samples. Antibody seropreva- lence was relatively stable before the outbreak (2011–2014) at 27.6% and 3.9% for anti-AIV (i.e., NP) and H5-specific antibodies, respectively. During the winter of 2022, AIV-NP and H5-specific antibody seroprevalence both reached 100%, signifying a population-wide infection event, which was observed again in late February 2023 following a sec- ond H5N1 incursion from Eurasia. As expected, population-level immunity waned over time, with ducks seroposi- tive for anti-AIV-NP antibodies for approximately twice as long as for H5-specific antibodies, with the population seronegative to the latter after approximately six months. We observed a clear relationship of increasing antibody levels with decreasing viral RNA loads that allowed for interpretation of the course of infection and immune response in infected individuals and applied these findings to two cases of resampled ducks to infer infection history. Our study highlights the value of applying both AIV surveillance and seroprevalence monitoring to provide a better understand- ing of AIV dynamics in wild populations, which may be crucial following the global dissemination of clade 2.3.4.4b H5Nx subtypes to assess the threats they pose to both wild and domestic animals, and to humans. Keywords Highly pathogenic avian influenza virus, H5N1, serology, resident and migratory ducks, immunity Handling editor: Kate Sutton. *Correspondence: Andrew S. Lang aslang@mun.ca Full list of author information is available at the end of the article http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1186/s13567-024-01397-5&domain=pdf http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7405-0911 http://orcid.org/0009-0005-4931-2552 http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4615-7137 http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7996-1223 http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8452-5506 http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0051-746X http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6448-3791 http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5958-3525 http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2232-3711 http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4510-7683 Page 2 of 14Wight et al. Veterinary Research (2024) 55:154 Introduction Wild birds are the reservoir hosts of avian influenza viruses (AIVs), with waterfowl being one of the main reservoir groups and vectors by which AIVs are spread, along with gulls, shorebirds, and seabirds [1–4]. Low pathogenic avian influenza virus (LPAIV) infection of waterfowl rarely results in overt disease symptoms, with birds usually clearing the infection within a mat- ter of days. Dabbling ducks (Anatinae) infected with highly pathogenic avian influenza virus (HPAIV) H5Nx subtypes, similar to LPAIV infection, can be minimally affected while shedding large quantities of virus, with mild disease symptoms and delayed local movements in some cases [5–8]. While many species of diving ducks (Aythyinae) also appear to be minimally affected, some such as tufted ducks (Aythya fuligula) have been shown to be particularly prone to experience symptomatic HPAIV H5Nx infections and can exhibit severe infection outcomes and high rates of mortality [6, 9, 10]. Recently, higher mortality in dabbling ducks due to HPAIV infec- tions has been observed, representing a new pattern in one of the main reservoir hosts [10–12]. HPAI clade 2.3.4.4 H5Nx viruses have been circulating with increasing frequency in wild birds in Eurasia and Africa since 2005 [9, 13–15], with the first incursion of A/goose/Guangdong/1/1996 (GsGd) lineage H5N8 clade 2.3.4.4 viruses into North America taking place in 2014 [16]. This virus, and a reassortant H5N2, did not persist and become established in North American wild bird populations. However, new incursions of clade 2.3.4.4b viruses starting in late 2021 have resulted in extensive reassortment with North American lineage LPAIVs, widespread circulation of H5Nx viruses throughout North and South America within a wide array of avian hosts, and multiple spillover events into mammals [17– 20]. These HPAIVs now seem to be part of the endemic viral population in wild birds in the Americas, Eurasia, and Africa. AIV surveillance in wild birds has been a global focus for decades and has contributed to understanding viral dynamics and identifying circulating strains in different regions and species. However, this has not been without challenges. Non-gallinaceous birds infected with LPAIVs are usually asymptomatic and test positive for viral RNA for only a very short period, generally 5–11 days [21–25], providing a narrow sampling window for the detection of active infections. An increasing number of serological studies have helped address this shortcoming, by which past AIV infection can be documented via detection of anti-AIV antibodies in the peripheral circulation for a period of months [24, 26–28]. A combined approach of AIV infection surveillance and serology can therefore help capture AIV dynamics in more detail and over a longer time frame, allowing interpretation of both active and past infections in populations [8, 29, 30]. A HPAI H5N1 clade 2.3.4.4b virus was identified in a great black-backed gull (GBBG, Larus marinus) that died in November 2021 in St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, and was found to be closely related to viruses circulating in northwestern Europe in the spring of 2021 [31]. Shortly after this first detection, the virus was identified in an exhibition farm in the area that housed primarily domestic fowl, which resulted in mass mortality [31]. Sampling of wild urban ducks in the area began about a week later and active H5N1 infection was detected in the duck population in late December 2021. The aim of this study was to thoroughly investigate pat- terns of AIV infection and immunity in this duck popula- tion over a period of approximately 16 months after the first arrival of H5N1 clade 2.3.4.4b to North America in November 2021. We accomplished this goal by employ- ing a combination of AIV surveillance to understand when infection was occurring and serology, specifically of general anti-AIV-NP as well as H5-specific antibodies, to understand immune responses. This work focused on how immunity changed over time while epidemiological information provided context and timing of infection(s) and bird movements. Materials and methods Bird capture and sampling Wild ducks were caught either by hand or bait trapping at several locations in or near the city of St. John’s, Newfound- land, including Bowring Park (47.528862°, −52.745943°), Commonwealth Pond (47.500765°, −52.789646°), Kenny’s Pond (47.591366°, −52.715759°), Kent’s Pond (47.589212°, −52.722767°), Mundy Pond (47.551419°, −52.741791°), Quidi Vidi Lake (47.579076°, −52.699627°), and Topsail Pond (47.524388°, −52.903371°). Sampling occurred in the fall and early winter months from 2011 to 2014, and at 11 timepoints through 2022 and 2023 during the ongo- ing HPAIV outbreaks (see Additional file 1). Bird age was determined using plumage aspect and cloacal character- istics [32, 33]. Age categories included hatch year (HY), after hatch year (AHY), second year (SY), and after second year (ASY). Hatch year birds that have not yet fledged are denoted as local (L). All birds were banded with a metal leg band issued by the Canadian Wildlife Service Bird Banding Office. Capture efforts targeted primarily mallards (Anas plat- yrhynchos), American black ducks (A. rubripes), northern pintails (A. acuta), and occasionally hybrid ducks that were a combination of American black ducks, mallards, and/or feral domesticated ducks (Anas spp.). Additional species were sampled opportunistically in 2022 and 2023, specifically American wigeon (Mareca americana), Page 3 of 14Wight et al. Veterinary Research (2024) 55:154 Eurasian wigeon (M. penelope), and lesser scaup (Aythya affinis). As there were a limited number of ducks that were AIV RNA-positive at the time of capture, we included AIV surveillance and serology data from several seabird species originating from other work to explore a larger dataset for an analysis on the relationship between RNA load and antibody levels. These species were also impacted by outbreaks of HPAI H5N1 that occurred during the summer of 2022. Data for 100 seabirds sam- pled at breeding colonies in eastern Newfoundland were included, with Atlantic puffins (Fratercula arctica), black- legged kittiwakes (Rissa tridactyla), and common murres (Uria aalge) sampled between June and August 2022 and in June 2023, and northern gannets (Morus bassanus) sampled in July 2022. Observations of wild bird movements Observations and remarks regarding the patterns of arrival of migratory individuals and timeline and move- ments of non-resident species were primarily made directly while working in the field, with additional sup- port provided by local experts, other birders in the region, sightings posted to birding social media pages, and submissions to eBird [34]. Bird banding and encounter data To provide further support of this wild urban duck population being comprised of primarily resident indi- viduals, we obtained encounter data (reporting of a bird band) from any location for all dabbling and diving ducks banded within a 20-km radius of St. John’s from 1 January 2010 to 17 May 2023 from the Canadian Wildlife Service Bird Banding Office. Sampling periods For analysis purposes, samples collected between 2011 and 2014 were grouped into sampling seasons. Sam- pling occurred across multiple months between Sep- tember and March of each period, and are referred to as the 2011–2012, 2012–2013, 2013–2014, and 2014–2015 seasons. Samples collected after H5N1 was first detected in 2021 were grouped as follows: winter-spring 2022 (January to May 2022), summer-fall 2022 (July to Sep- tember 2022), and then separately for samples collected in the months of February, March, and April 2023. Spe- cific details about when each sample was collected can be found in Additional file 1. Serology Two to three millilitres of blood were drawn from the brachial wing vein of each captured individual. Serum was separated from clotted blood by centrifugation at 3000 ×  g for ten minutes and subsequently stored at −20 °C for future analysis. For 19 samples collected at the start of the outbreak and 28 archived samples, AIV com- petitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (cELISAs) were performed at the National Centre for Foreign Ani- mal Disease (NCFAD) laboratory as previously described [35]. All other samples were tested using the IDEXX AI MultiS Screen Ab test (IDEXX Canada, Product # 99-12119) as per the manufacturer’s instructions, which detects antibodies against influenza A nucleoprotein (NP) [36], with 12 samples initially tested at the NCFAD later re-tested using this assay. A sample to negative con- trol ratio (S/N) of < 0.5 was considered positive for influ- enza antibodies. As some studies have employed a S/N ratio of < 0.7 for positivity [27, 36, 37], this value is shown on relevant figures for comparison purposes. Samples from the 2011–2012 period were no longer available, therefore the previously published data were used [38]. All sera positive for anti-AIV-NP antibodies were subse- quently tested at the NCFAD for antibodies specifically against subtype H5 using an in-house developed cELISA that detects antibodies against all clades of subtype H5 [39]. Swab samples and RNA extraction Oropharyngeal and cloacal swabs were collected from all individuals from 2022 to 2023 and the paired swabs were pooled into a single tube of Multitrans viral transport medium (Starplex Scientific, Product # S160-100) and represent a single sample per individual. Samples were stored in a cooler on ice and an aliquot was removed for RNA extraction within six hours, and samples were subsequently stored at −80 °C. RNA was extracted from 140 μL of each sample using the Qiagen Viral RNA Mini Kit (Qiagen, Product # 52906) as per the manufacturer’s instructions and stored at −80 °C until further analysis. Screening for influenza A viruses Real-time RT-PCR was performed using AgPath-ID™ One-Step RT-PCR reagents (Applied Biosystems, Product # 4387424) on either a StepOnePlus or 7500 Fast Real- Time PCR System (Applied Biosystems). All samples were screened for the presence of the influenza A virus (IAV) matrix gene and subsequent positives were screened for the H5 subtype of the haemagglutinin gene. RT-qPCR primers and probes, and cycling conditions detailed in [40] were used, with some modifications. For the initial RT-qPCR targeting the IAV matrix gene, 25 μL reactions were prepared using 12.5 μL of 2X RT-PCR buffer, 1 μL of 25X RT-PCR enzyme mix, 0.25 μL of 20 μM F25 (5ʹ-AGA TGA GTC TTC TAA CCG AGG TCG -3ʹ), 0.25 μL of 20 μM R124 (5ʹ-TGC AAA AAC ATC TTC AAG TCT CTG -3ʹ), 0.25 μL of 20  μM R124M (5ʹ-TGC AAA GAC ACT TTC CAG TCT CTG -3ʹ), 0.25 μL of 6  μM double-quenched probe Page 4 of 14Wight et al. Veterinary Research (2024) 55:154 F64P (5ʹ-[FAM]-TCA GGC CCC[ZEN]CTC AAA GCCGA- [IB]-3ʹ) (IDT Inc., Canada), 1.67 μL of AgPath Detec- tion Enhancer (Applied Biosystems, Product # A44941), 0.83 μL of nuclease-free water, and 8 μL of RNA. Cycling was performed in standard mode, with parameters as follows: 45  °C for 20 min, 95  °C for 10 min, followed by 45 cycles of 95  °C for 5  s, and 60  °C for 1 min at which time fluorescent signal was detected. A standard curve of IAV RNA as well as no-template controls were included during each run. Thresholds were determined automati- cally by the instrument’s software based on the standard curve, and this threshold was applied after manual con- firmation to determine the cycle threshold (Ct) values for each sample. Samples that yielded the characteristic amplification curve and had a Ct ≤ 45 were interpreted as positive [41–43], while those that yielded the characteris- tic amplification curve but did not surpass the threshold were interpreted as inconclusive and denoted as having a Ct > 45. All samples that yielded an amplification curve for the IAV matrix RT-qPCR were subsequently screened for the H5 subtype using primers, probes, and cycling con- ditions detailed in [44], with some modifications. The 25 μL reactions were prepared using 12.5 μL of 2X RT- PCR buffer, 1 μL of 25X RT-PCR enzyme mix, 0.25 μL of 20  μM H5_1456-NA_F (5ʹ-ACG TAT GAC TAT CCA CAA TAC TCA -3ʹ), 0.25 μL of 20  μM H5_1456-EA_F (5ʹ-ACG TAT GAC TAC CCG CAG TAT TCA -3ʹ), 0.125 μL of 20  μM H5_1685_R (5ʹ-AGA CCA GCT ACC ATG ATT GC-3ʹ), 0.125 μL of 20  μM H5_1685M_R (5ʹ-AGA CCA GCT ATC ATG ATT GC-3ʹ), 0.25 μL of 6 μM double quenched probe H5_1637P (5ʹ-[FAM]-TCA ACA GTG[ZEN]GCG AGT TCC CTA GCA-[IB]-3ʹ) (IDT Inc., Canada), 2.5 μL of nucle- ase-free water, and 8 μL of RNA. Cycling was performed in standard mode, with parameters as follows: 45  °C for 20  min, 95  °C for 10  min, followed by 45 cycles of 94  °C for 10 s, 57 °C for 40 s at which time fluorescent signal was detected, and 72  °C for 5  s. Any samples that yielded the characteristic amplification curve were interpreted as posi- tive for H5. Samples positive for the matrix gene that tested negative for H5 were presumed to be LPAIVs. For these samples, a 686-bp fragment of the HA2 region of the haemaggluti- nin gene was amplified using the NEB OneTaq® One-Step RT-PCR Kit (New England Biolabs, Product # E5315S) and sequenced to determine the HA subtype. 25 μL reac- tions were prepared using 12.5 μL of 2X OneTaq One- Step Reaction Mix, 1 μL of 2X OneTaq One-Step Enzyme Mix, 1 μL of 10 μM HA-1134F (5ʹ-GGR ATG RTHGAYG- GNTGG TAY GG-3ʹ), 1 μL of 10 μM Bm-NS-890R (5ʹ-ATA TCG TCT CGT ATT AGT AGA AAC AAG GGT GTTTT-3ʹ), 1.5 μL of nuclease-free water, and 8 μL of RNA. Cycling parameters were as follows: 48  °C for 60  min, 95  °C for 5 min, 7 cycles of 94 °C for 15 s, 42 °C for 30 s, and 68 °C for 3 min, then 35 cycles of 94 °C for 15 s, 58 °C for 30 s, and 68 °C for 3 min, followed by a final extension at 68 °C for 7  min. PCR products were subjected to electropho- resis for visualization, and amplicons were purified using AMPure XP beads (Beckman Coulter) and subjected to Sanger sequencing at The Hospital for Sick Children (Toronto, Canada). Classification of individual infection status We used antibody levels (S/N ratios), AIV RNA load, and epidemiological data, specifically the known dates of population-wide infection, to classify each individual based on their infection status. Currently infected indi- viduals were those with detectable viral RNA. Recently infected individuals represented those that were nega- tive for AIV RNA but were sampled within six months of the population-wide infection events or had elevated antibody levels (S/N < 0.7). They were subdivided into categories of being infected one, three, or six months previously based on the epidemiological patterns, or recently infected if the time between infection and sam- pling was unknown. Individuals having low antibody levels (S/N > 0.7) were classified as being either naïve or having antibody levels that had waned. Statistical analysis and data visualization R v4.1.0 [45] was used to perform data manipulation, sta- tistical analysis, and data visualization. To test whether antibody levels declined over time at different rates for anti-NP and anti-H5 antibodies, we used a generalized linear model with a binomial response and a logit link function. S/N ratios were used as the response, with the week of the year as a linear covariate and a week by anti-NP/anti-H5-specific antibody interaction. A signifi- cant interaction term meant the rates of decline for the two types of antibodies were different. In order to test whether antibody levels had changed since the time of last infection, a simple linear model was used, with S/N ratios as the response, and time since last infection (1, 3 or 6  months) as  a linear covariate. A p-value < 0.05 was considered as significant for all tests. R packages used included cowplot v1.1.1 [46], data.table  v1.14.2 [47], ggpattern v1.1.1-0 [48], ggplot2 v3.4.0 [49], and readxl v1.4.2 [50]. Results Samples collected and used in the study A total of 217 serum samples were collected from ducks between 2011 and 2014. After the first cases of HPAI H5N1 in the province in late 2021, 83 paired swab and serum samples were collected from ducks between Jan- uary 2022 and April 2023. In total, 300 duck sera are Page 5 of 14Wight et al. Veterinary Research (2024) 55:154 included in this study from 298 individuals, with two ducks recaptured and resampled in 2023. Paired swab and serum samples from 100 seabirds that were sampled during the summers of 2022 and 2023 were also included for an analysis on the relationship between viral RNA load and antibody levels, providing a larger dataset than available solely from the ducks. Movement patterns of banded ducks In total, 1045 ducks were banded within the St. John’s area (20-km radius) between 1 January 2010 to 17 May 2023. Of these banded birds, 176 were reported as being encountered at least once, with 172 (97.7%) being reported in St. John’s, two reported elsewhere on the island of Newfoundland, one reported in Labrador, and one reported in Nova Scotia. Of all 176 encounters, 104 were reported dead/by hunters, 70 by recapture or resightings, and two were unspecified. This provides additional support that the wild urban duck population comprises primarily resident individuals that spend their entire lives in the same local region. Changes in population seroprevalence over time Before the incursion of HPAI H5N1 into the region in November 2021, the overall mean AIV-NP seropreva- lence was 27.6% (range 17.6–52.6%) for the sampling seasons of 2011–2015. Antibodies specifically against H5 were markedly lower at a mean seroprevalence of 3.9% (range 2.2–5.6%) between 2012 and 2014 (Figure 1), which reflects the fact that there were no HPAI H5Nx viruses circulating in this region during this time period and that LPAIV H5 strains circulate in this population at low prevalence [38]. In the winter-spring period of 2022, one to four months after the arrival of HPAI H5N1, AIV-NP and H5-specific seroprevalence reached 90.9% (20/22) and 81.8% (18/22), respectively. This indicates that after the introduction of H5N1 to the region, most of the population was infected with this virus. During the summer-fall period of 2022, seroprevalence decreased to 20 11 20 12 Sea so n ( n = 38 ) 20 12 20 13 Sea so n ( n = 36 ) 20 13 20 14 Sea so n ( n = 91 ) 20 14 Wint er– Sum mer–20 15 Sea so n ( n = 52 ) Spri ng 20 22 (n = 22 ) Fa ll 2 02 2 ( n = 24 ) Fe bru ary 20 23 (n = 21 ) Marc h 2 02 3 ( n = 10 ) Apri l 20 23 (n = 6) Time Period Antibody Type AIV-NP H5-specific 100 75 50 25Pe rc en t S er op os iti vi ty (% ) 0 Figure 1 AIV-NP and H5-specific seropositivity in the urban duck population over time. Sampling occurred in the fall and early winter months between 2011 to 2014, and then at 11 timepoints through 2022–2023 during the ongoing HPAI H5N1 outbreak. AIV seropositivity data for samples from 2011–2012 were previously published [38] and the H5-specific ELISA was not performed with these since they were no longer available. Only samples that were positive for AIV antibodies were tested for H5-specific antibodies. Mean seropositivity with standard error bars is shown. Page 6 of 14Wight et al. Veterinary Research (2024) 55:154 45.8% (11/24) and 8.3% (2/24) for AIV-NP and H5-spe- cific antibodies, respectively. Therefore, H5 seropositivity essentially returned to the baseline levels observed before the arrival of H5N1. In February 2023, just over one year after the original incursion, AIV-NP seroprevalence was approaching similar levels as observed over 2011–2014 at 42.9% (9/21), while H5-specific seroprevalence had increased to 19% (4/21). Approximately three weeks later in March 2023, AIV-NP seroprevalence rose to 100% (10/10) and H5 RNA was detected in four (40%) of these ducks. Only one of the ducks (10%) was seropositive for H5-specific antibodies at this time. Seven weeks later, at the end of April 2023, all six individuals sampled were seropositive for both AIV-NP and H5-specific antibodies (Figure 1). To further understand how immunity in the popu- lation changed over time, we investigated the sero- prevalence (n = 75) over 64 weeks, specifically from 28 January 2022 through 25 April 2023, and also tested for AIV infection over this period (Figure 2). After the initial incursion of the clade 2.3.4.4b H5N1 virus and the population-wide infection event, seroprevalence decreased substantially over time. By approximately six months later, all ducks were seronegative for H5-spe- cific antibodies, while half were still anti-AIV-NP anti- body seropositive. AIV-NP antibodies were elevated for approximately twice as long as H5-specific antibodies ( χ2 = 4.97, df = 9, p = 0.0005) over this period. A change in AIV-NP seropositivity occurred between weeks 32 and 37, corresponding to July and August 2022, when several individuals tested positive for non-H5 AIVs (H9Nx, H11Nx, and two additional strains of unknown HA subtype). This resulted in a slight increase in seropositivity that aligned with detection of LPAIVs through the summer of 2022 to February 2023 (Fig- ure 2). In March 2023, H5-subtype viral RNA was again detected, and all birds sampled were AIV-NP seroposi- tive, with only one of these individuals seropositive for H5-specific antibodies at this time. By the end of April 2023, all individuals sampled were seropositive for both AIV-NP and H5-specific antibodies, indicating that an H5 subtype virus had again spread through the popu- lation. Overall, using a combination of AIV surveil- lance and strain subtyping, serology, and epidemiology we were able to construct a robust timeline of AIV 0 25 50 75 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 Weeks Since 1 January 2022 Pe rc en t S er op os iti vi ty (% ) Antibody Type AIV H5 specific Figure 2 Changes in AIV-NP and H5-specific seropositivity over the course of 16 months after the arrival of H5N1. Sampling began on 28 January 2022 and continued until 25 April 2023. Arrows above the plot correspond to AIV detections in individuals sampled at that time point, with red arrows denoting when HPAIV (H5N1) was detected and blue arrows denoting LPAIV(s) was detected. Mean seropositivity along with standard error bars is shown. A hatched pattern is used for H5-specific seroprevalence to indicate that it overlays the AIV-NP seroprevalence. The two seronegative individuals sampled in February 2022 were removed from this week-by-week analysis as they were believed to have not been present at the time of the population-wide infection event (see Discussion). Additionally, the six individuals sampled on 23 August 2022 were also removed from this analysis as they were presumed to be primarily migratory individuals, coinciding with the large influx of individuals during this post-breeding migration period. Page 7 of 14Wight et al. Veterinary Research (2024) 55:154 infection and immune response in this population for the 16-month period (Figure 3). Immune responses in currently infected individuals There were five individuals that were actively infected that had Ct values < 40, and these showed a negative relationship between antibody levels and viral RNA load (Figure  4). For ducks that were AIV RNA-negative at the time of sampling and where the time since infec- tion was known, specifically those infected one, three, or six months prior to sampling, antibody levels decreased significantly over this time period (Figure  4; F = 5.71, df = 1,15, p = 0.03). Including additional AIV prevalence and seropreva- lence data obtained from various seabird species further supported the patterns observed in the ducks. Of the combined duck and seabird samples (n = 176), 17 indi- viduals (9.7%) were currently infected and showed a clear relationship of increasing antibody levels with decreasing AIV viral RNA load (Figure  5A), an expected immuno- logical response. A generalized linear model was used to highlight this relationship, showing the immune response in infected individuals at a population level (Figure 5B). Changes in serology of two recaptured ducks Over the course of sampling between January 2022 and April 2023, two northern pintails were recaptured and resampled, allowing for comparison of antibody lev- els between the two timepoints. Both individuals were captured and recaptured at the same location, Bowring Park, and were viral RNA-negative at both sampling time points. The first, a male ASY (band # 1196-13442) was first captured on 28 January 2022 and subsequently recaptured on 7 February 2023, totalling 375  days between samples. The second, a female AHY (band # 1196-13448) was first captured on 31 July 2022 and subsequently recaptured on 7 February 2023, totalling 191 days between samples. We do not know if they were infected with AIV(s) between the sampling events, but antibody levels were lower in both individuals at the time of recapture, although to different degrees (Figure 6). Discussion In this investigation we used a combination of AIV sur- veillance, serology, and epidemiology to document AIV infection and immune responses in an urban duck popu- lation over a period of 16 months following the incursion of the clade 2.3.4.4b H5N1 virus in late 2021 and com- pare this to the AIV seroprevalence of the population prior to the arrival of HPAIV. Through repeat sampling of the same population, we investigated changes in antibody levels through two population-wide HPAIV infection events and examined patterns of immune response over the course of AIV infection on individual scales. Using this combined information in the context of a duck popu- lation largely composed of non-migratory resident indi- viduals, we were able to generate a robust AIV infection and immunity timeline at a population-wide scale, add- ing to the growing body of literature about these complex dynamics. Changes in seroprevalence over time Over the course of 2011–2014, mean AIV-NP seropreva- lence was 27.6%, with some variation between seasons. Sampling over these years typically occurred during the late fall and early winter, during and after typical peak AIV circulation in the region. These data serve to estab- lish a baseline for AIV immunity in this population prior to the incursion of H5N1 into the region. A variety of factors could affect variation in seroprevalence between years, including year-to-year variations among circulat- ing AIV subtypes/strains and population age structure Figure 3 Summary of the AIV infection and immunity timeline since arrival of HPAI H5N1 in the region. Page 8 of 14Wight et al. Veterinary Research (2024) 55:154 and exposure history. AIV prevalence can follow cyclic patterns, with increased prevalence every several years [51–54]. Prevalence was noticeably higher in 2011–2012, however, these individuals were captured by bait-trap- ping, which may overestimate true AIV prevalence [55], while ducks were captured by hand in the other years. As expected, AIV seroprevalence increased greatly in the population following the arrival of H5N1 in Novem- ber 2021, when nearly every duck sampled in January 2022 was seropositive. There was nearly homogenous seroprevalence across all sampled sites and the same banded ducks were observed using multiple urban water- bodies in the area. Given this, along with the extremely high proportion of ducks banded locally only ever being encountered in the same area, we consider the ducks in this urban region at this time to represent a single pop- ulation. Therefore, there was a population-wide infec- tion event after the arrival of the virus from Eurasia. As AIV-infected waterfowl often exhibit reduced local movements, the large number of infected individuals shedding virus into the local environment could have increased the infection rate at this time, facilitating profi- cient spread throughout the population to cause the near homogenous seroprevalence [8, 56]. It is possible that the two seronegative individuals sampled in winter-spring 2022, a mallard and an American wigeon, had moved into the area from elsewhere and were therefore not pre- sent at the time of the population-wide infection that occurred roughly a month and a half prior to their sam- pling. Alternatively, although we believe less likely due to an increase of the number of ducks present in February compared to January, they may have been present in the area but were not infected or were infected but did not generate a detectable antibody response. Using repeated sampling of this population for roughly 16  months we found that AIV-NP and H5-specific seroprevalence changed greatly in the months follow- ing the H5N1 incursion. Individuals were seropositive 20 25 30 35 40 45 IA V M at rix C t v al ue m pl es IA V M at rix C t V al ue ve S 00 0.00.51.01.5 Antibody Level (S/N Ratio)V R N A N eg at iv Infection Status Currently infected (n = 9) Recently infected (n = 31) Infected 1 month ago (n = 11) Infected 3 months ago (n = 3) Infected 6 months ago (n = 3) Naïve or waned (n = 19) Figure 4 Relationship between viral RNA load and AIV-NP antibody levels for ducks. Each point represents an individual duck (n = 76), and colours indicate infection status. Individuals currently infected, shown in the top panel, were those that had detectable viral RNA loads by RT-qPCR. Samples with low RNA loads that provided expected amplification curves but that did not surpass the cycle threshold value are represented as having a Ct value of 45. All individuals that were negative for viral RNA are shown in the lower panel, with the antibody level coloured by the infection status in shades of blue. Recently infected individuals were classified as such if they were viral RNA-negative but had elevated antibody levels. For individuals sampled soon after the population-wide infection event at the start of the outbreak, these recently infected ducks are further separated as being infected one, three, or six months prior. Individuals that were seronegative and had low antibody levels (high S/N ratios) were classified as being naïve or that their antibodies had waned. An arrow denotes the expected immunological response shown by the five currently infected individuals with Ct values < 40, illustrating the observed trend of increasing antibody levels with decreasing viral RNA load. The vertical line at an S/N ratio of 0.5 represents the threshold value used to classify seropositivity, with a line at 0.7 also shown as the threshold occasionally used for this assay in other studies. Page 9 of 14Wight et al. Veterinary Research (2024) 55:154 for anti-NP antibodies for approximately twice as long as H5-specific antibodies, with the population being H5-seronegative approximately six months after the incursion. It is well known that waterfowl, and this duck population specifically [38, 57], are frequently infected by LPAIVs, which likely explains the longer period of elevated anti-NP antibodies that are boosted with each subsequent infection. Dabbling ducks using human-dom- inated landscapes in Atlantic Canada show notably high survival rates and strong annual site fidelity to wintering areas [58], leading to a population with an older age dis- tribution than usual. This older age structure may have contributed to the higher seroprevalence overall and over time, as antibody levels are elevated and persist longer in older individuals [27, 59, 60]. With low seroprevalence of H5-specific antibodies from 2012 to 2014, assumed to be due to occasional circulation of LPAI H5 viruses, most individuals sampled in 2022 were likely infected for the first time with an H5 virus, explaining the shorter period in which these specific antibodies persisted. In March 2023, H5 viral RNA was again detected in the population. This virus was different than the origi- nal virus from the winter of 2022 and represented a new incursion into the region (Wight et al., unpublished data). The appreciable change in both AIV-NP and H5-specific seropositivity observed between weeks 58 and 59 (Feb- ruary 2023) therefore served as a signal of low-level cir- culation of the new H5 virus in the population prior to detection of active infections. Based on the declining H5-specific antibody seroprevalence since the original population-wide infection event and the lack of H5 viral 20 25 30 35 40 0.000.250.500.751.00 Antibody Level (S/N Ratio) IA V M at rix C t V al ue 00 0.00.51.01.5 Antibody Level (S/N Ratio)V R N A N eg at ive S a 20 25 30 35 40 45 IA V M at rix C t v al ue m pl es Infection Status Currently infected (n = 29) Recently infected (n = 80) Naïve or waned (n = 67) IA V M at rix C t V al ue Figure 5 Relationship between viral RNA load and AIV antibody levels for ducks and seabirds. Each point represents an individual and colours indicate infection status. A Data from all ducks (n = 76) from Figure 4 are included in this plot, along with data for 100 seabirds (42 Atlantic puffins, 16 black-legged kittiwakes, 28 common murres, and 14 northern gannets). Individuals were classified as being currently infected, recently infected, or naïve/waned, using the same classification as in Figure 4. An arrow denotes the expected immunological response shown by the seventeen currently infected individuals, illustrating the relationship between increasing antibody levels with decreasing viral RNA load. These same individuals are shown in B, where a generalized linear model (GLM) was fit to show the relationship between antibody level and viral RNA load, with the gray area indicating the 95% confidence interval of the model. The vertical lines at an S/N ratio of 0.5 represent the threshold value used to classify seropositivity, with lines at 0.7 also shown as the threshold occasionally used for this assay in other studies. 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 0 100 200 300 400 Days Between Sampling An tib od y Le ve l ( S/ N R at io ) Band Number 1196−13442 1196−13448 Figure 6 Antibody levels of two northern pintails at two timepoints. The bird with band # 1196-13442 was recaptured after 375 days and the bird with band # 1196-13448 was recaptured after 191 days. Dotted lines connect original capture and recapture values to show the change in antibody levels; these do not represent linear regressions as we do not know if or when they were re-infected with AIV between the sampling events. The vertical line at an S/N ratio of 0.5 represents the threshold value used to classify seropositivity, with a line at 0.7 also shown as the threshold occasionally used for this assay in other studies. Page 10 of 14Wight et al. Veterinary Research (2024) 55:154 RNA detected, H5-specific seropositivity was presum- ably very low until the time of the second incursion event that occurred sometime in February 2023. By the end of April 2023, all individuals sampled were seropositive for both AIV-NP and H5-specific antibodies, indicative of a second population-wide infection event. Although the population was fully infected a year prior, and approxi- mately half of the population still had elevated AIV-NP antibody levels when the new H5 virus appeared, this was not sufficient to protect against infection and widespread circulation. We consider there are two plausible routes for trans- mission of the new H5N1 virus into the wild urban duck population. In February 2023, several species of div- ing ducks (greater and lesser scaup (Aythya marila, A. affinis), tufted ducks (A. fuligula), ring-necked ducks (A. collaris), and red-breasted and common mergansers (Mergus serrator, M. merganser)) that would normally be using coastal marine habitat at this time of the year [61] took shelter at Quidi Vidi Lake from a harsh winter storm. This mixing of these diving ducks with the urban population could have served as the route of transmis- sion. Alternatively, hundreds of gulls originating from Arctic, European, and mainland North American breed- ing populations congregate at Quidi Vidi Lake each win- ter, which is the same location as the first detections of the new H5N1 in the ducks (Additional file 1). Gulls have been identified as important vectors by which Eurasian clade AIVs can enter into North America [62–64], and it is possible they brought the new H5N1 into the region and introduced it into the local duck population. Re-infection of the population just over a year later could have been due to a variety of factors. The higher virulence and infectivity of HPAIVs compared to LPAIVs likely played an important role in the original and subse- quent population-wide infection events [10, 11, 65–67]. Immunological factors such as waning immunity that did not provide protection from re-infection, escape from the immune system due to low cross-reactive antibodies owing to differences between the two viruses, and delay in memory responses that would allow viral infection to occur before a protective response could be mounted, may have also played a role. Several groups have shown that antibody levels decrease over time following infec- tion of AIV-naïve captive ducks with a variety of differ- ent AIVs, as expected. However, these homologous and heterologous challenge studies have shown that antibody levels rebound in a matter of days after a second infec- tion and ducks are often protected from clinical disease [23, 24, 68]. Unfortunately, the majority of these stud- ies, including all those on HPAIVs [22, 28, 69–71], have been performed at timescales of weeks, as opposed to months or years, periods that are relevant to timing of bird migration, and therefore it is currently unknown how long HPAIV-specific antibodies remain elevated and how long individuals are protected from subsequent re-infection. Migratory individuals with lower AIV seroprevalence that arrived in the region as well as AIV-naïve ducks born in the summer of 2022 may have also contributed to the spread of the 2023 H5N1 virus among the popula- tion. The success at which these viruses spread through- out the population was also likely influenced by the two H5N1 infection events occurring in early winter, after the typical fall AIV infection peak [3], when antibody levels are waning and low energy stores due to reduced food availability and colder conditions may have made birds more susceptible to infection [21, 43, 72]. Additionally, increased density of birds due to frozen waters may have increased the likelihood of infection during this time. Following the detection of the newly introduced lineage H5N1 in early 2023, several mute swans (Cygnus olor) and a number of American black ducks in St. John’s were reported dead, while there was no documented mortality of waterfowl in the region when H5N1 initially infected the population in late-2021/early-2022 [73]. Relationship between viral load and antibody levels Extending beyond population-scale seropositivity, we used S/N ratios as a measure of antibody levels along with AIV RNA load (based on Ct values) to investigate patterns of immune response over the course of infec- tion on an individual scale. As individuals progress along the course of infection and transition from the viremic to immunologic phase, viral RNA decreases while anti- body levels begin to increase. With substantial varia- tions by species, virus, and body condition, previous work has found that AIV shedding often peaks between 1 and 8 days post-infection (dpi) and lasts for 5–11 days, although some individuals may shed virus for several weeks [21–24, 43, 68, 74, 75]. The period of viral shed- ding has also been found to decrease with more frequent infections [59], and therefore there is a very small win- dow in which ducks can be caught and documented with an active infection [25]. Recently infected individuals had a range of antibody levels, with those sampled closer to the date of the pop- ulation-wide infection having higher levels than those infected many months prior (Figure  4). In contrast to recently infected individuals, no pattern was observed with the timeline of infection and epidemiology or the antibody levels for naïve or waned birds. We did not pur- sue statistical analyses by age structure or between sexes due to the limited sample size of each group for each sampling event, but there appeared to be no differences Page 11 of 14Wight et al. Veterinary Research (2024) 55:154 in antibody levels for seronegative individuals by age class, agreeing with previous observations [43]. Immune responses in individuals with active infections Nine ducks were sampled while actively shedding AIV and there was a negative relationship trend for antibody levels versus viral RNA load. This pattern was further supported by inclusion of additional data from seabirds in order to provide a larger dataset of currently infected individuals and the relationship of increasing antibody levels with decreasing viral RNA load is clear (Fig- ure  5B). This is an expected immunological response and shows that innate and memory immune mecha- nisms are quickly responding by generating antibod- ies as individuals are clearing the infection and leaving the viral shedding phase [29]. This also allowed us to infer the phase of infection at an individual level. We are unable to determine previous infection history of each individual as we are interpreting this relationship as a whole population, but factors such as age, infection history, as well as species-level differences would be expected to affect antibody levels on an individual scale [27, 28, 43, 60, 74]. Serological changes in two recaptured ducks Based on HPAIV prevalence and epidemiology over the course of this study, it is unlikely that either of the recaptured northern pintails were infected with HPAIV between the two sampling points. However, the male (1196-13442) was likely infected by an LPAIV at some point between the two sampling events as its anti- body levels hardly changed between sampling events, roughly one year apart, and it did not have elevated H5-specific antibodies (Figure  6, Additional file  1). Captive infection studies have shown that AIV antibod- ies persist for several months, however antibodies have not been found to remain elevated to this degree for over a year, even in older individuals [23, 24, 27, 28, 60, 68]. In contrast, the second individual (female, 1196- 13448) seems unlikely to have been infected between sampling events. In light of previous findings from cap- tive infection studies, even if this individual became infected soon after initial sampling, elevated antibody levels would likely still have been detected when resa- mpled approximately six months later. Although these data come from only two individuals, using the com- bined AIV prevalence, seroprevalence, and epidemio- logical approach helps add to our understanding of AIV dynamics in wild populations. Efforts to resample individuals multiple times from locations with known AIV dynamics and population movements would be of substantial interest in future work to evaluate changes in seroprevalence more thoroughly, particularly on an individual basis, and how this contributes to population level immunity [29, 76]. Summary, conclusions, and future directions Despite some limitations of this study, such as a lim- ited sample size and that sampling occurred in a single region, our findings significantly add to the understand- ing of AIV infection dynamics and immunity in one of the most important reservoir host groups. This was enabled by an established understanding of the AIV infection dynamics in this region where this duck population is composed of primarily resident individ- uals. Using repeated sampling of this population dur- ing ongoing HPAIV and LPAIV circulation, we were able to document waning immunity, observe immune activation occurring in infected individuals, and infer infection histories. We found that although population level infection and seroconversion did occur, immunity waned quickly, and the population became susceptible again to the virus. This further supports the high likeli- hood of this virus becoming endemic with continuous circulation, as it now appears to be, contrasting the low levels of circulation, largely among young recruits and/ or naïve birds, as observed for many other microbial pathogens. Our findings have important implications for monitoring the ongoing risk from HPAIVs, as pre- viously infected populations can be reinfected along relatively short time scales, allowing for repeated circu- lation of the virus. This should be an important consid- eration for future monitoring efforts as this virus and derived reassortants carried by wild birds may spill over into other hosts such as mammals and poultry, without the typical early warning signs of disease or mortality in wild birds that have often preceded these events. It will be important to perform similar studies else- where to determine if the patterns we observed also occur in other populations, species, and locations, par- ticularly to compare the rate of waning antibody levels after peak AIV prevalence. The determination of whether these antibodies are neutralizing and if and for how long individuals with pre-existing immunity are protected from infection and/or severe disease would also be of significant interest. Additional captive infection stud- ies should be performed to better understand the role of pre-existing and heterotypic immunity to LPAIVs and HPAIVs, particularly along timeframes that are rel- evant to key aspects of bird biology such as migration. Conducting similar studies on birds other than ducks would help determine host susceptibility, assess the like- lihood of experiencing severe disease and mortality, and may help identify species groups most at risk. Wildlife surveillance of infectious diseases is a critical aspect of Page 12 of 14Wight et al. Veterinary Research (2024) 55:154 preparedness within a One Health framework and is par- ticularly important with respect to HPAIV, which is prov- ing to be a multispecies pathogen that can have impacts far beyond the poultry industry. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ s13567- 024- 01397-5. Additional file 1. Detailed records for samples from ducks that were used in this study. Samples from the 2011–2012 period were no longer available, therefore the previously published data [38] were used and are presented as only anti-NP antibody-positive or -negative. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank all additional individuals who contributed to sampling efforts including A. Bond (2014), S. Duffy (2013), K. d’Entremont (2022), D. Fifield (2011), D. Fife (2023), S. Avery-Gomm (2013), A. Hedd (2023), R. Hoeg (2022), B. Kelly (2022), A. Kroyer (2014), B. Montevecchi (2022), H. Munro (2014), D. Pirie-Hay (2012-2014), P. Ryan (2012, 2013, 2023), K. Studholme (2022), B. Turner (2023), M. Wallace (2023), S. Wallace (2023), and C. Ward (2022). Author’s contributions Conceptualization: JW, GJR, ASL. Data curation: JW, IR, WX. Formal analysis: JW, GJR. Funding acquisition: GJR, ASL. Investigation: JW, IR, HLW, JTC, SR, GJR, RSR, WX, DZ, TNA, YB, KEH, ASL. Methodology: JW, IR, HLW, GJR, TA, WX, DZ, YB, ASL. Project administration: JW, ASL. Resources: JW, IR, HLW, JTC, SR, GJR, TNA, YB, KEH, ASL. Software: JW. Supervision: ASL. Validation: JW. Visualization: JW. Writ- ing—original draft preparation: JW. Writing—review and editing: JW, IR, HLW, JTC, SR, GJR, RSR, WX, DZ, TNA, YB, KEH, ASL. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Funding This research was supported by funding from Environment and Climate Change Canada core funding and through its Strategic Technology Applica- tion of Genomics in the Environment (STAGE) program Genomics Research and Development Initiative (GRDI), and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) (RGPIN-2022-03791 to ASL). JW, IR, and SR were supported by funding from the Memorial University of Newfound- land School of Graduate Studies. JW was also supported by funding from the NSERC Canadian Lake Pulse Network (NETGP 479720), and an Alexander Gra- ham Bell Canada Graduate Scholarship-Doctoral. HLW was supported by fund- ing from the Memorial University School of Graduate Studies Aldrich Award, a Memorial University Faculty of Medicine Dean’s Fellowship (MSc and PhD), a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Banting and Best Canada Graduate Scholarship—Masters, and a Canadian Network on Hepatitis C Virus Doctoral Fellowship. Environment and Climate Change Canada provided materials and reagents to perform the AIV sampling and testing for seabirds. Availability of data and materials All metadata and laboratory generated data related to samples from ducks are included in this published article and the additional information file. Addi- tional data, specifically those relating to samples from seabirds, will be made available by the authors upon reasonable request. Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate This work was carried out under the guidelines specified by the Canadian Council on Animal Care with approved protocols 11-01-AL, 12-01-AL, 13-01- AL, 14-01-AL, 17-05-AL, and 20-05-AL from Memorial University’s Institutional Animal Care Committee, biosafety permit S-103 from Memorial University’s Institutional Biosafety Committee, and banding and sampling operations under Federal Bird Banding and Scientific Research Permit 10559. Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Author details 1 Department of Biology, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, NL, Canada. 2 Division of Biomedical Sciences, Memorial University of Newfound- land, St. John’s, NL, Canada. 3 Wildlife Research Division, Environment and Cli- mate Change Canada, Mount Pearl, NL, Canada. 4 National Centre for Foreign Animal Disease, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Winnipeg, MB, Canada. 5 Department of Veterinary Pathology, Western College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada. 6 Department of Animal Sci- ence, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada. Received: 26 April 2024 Accepted: 9 September 2024 References 1. Hinshaw VS, Air GM, Gibbs AJ, Graves L, Prescott B, Karunakaran D (1982) Antigenic and genetic characterization of a novel hemagglutinin subtype of influenza A viruses from gulls. J Virol 42:865–872 2. Lang AS, Lebarbenchon C, Ramey AM, Robertson GJ, Waldenström J, Wille M (2016) Assessing the role of seabirds in the ecology of influenza A viruses. Avian Dis 60:378 3. Olsen B, Munster VJ, Wallensten A, Waldenström J, Osterhaus ADME, Fouchier RAM (2006) Global patterns of influenza A virus in wild birds. Science 312:384–388 4. Webster RG, Bean WJ, Gorman OT, Chambers TM, Kawaoka Y (1992) Evolution and ecology of influenza A viruses. Microbiol Rev 56:152–179 5. Gaidet N, Cappelle J, Takekawa JY, Prosser DJ, Iverson SA, Douglas DC, Perry WM, Mundkur T, Newman SH (2010) Potential spread of highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1 by wildfowl: dispersal ranges and rates determined from large-scale satellite telemetry: potential dispersal of H5N1 HPAI virus by wildfowl. J Appl Ecol 47:1147–1157 6. Keawcharoen J, van Riel D, van Amerongen G, Bestebroer T, Beyer WE, van Lavieren R, Osterhaus ADME, Fouchier RAM, Kuiken T (2008) Wild ducks as long-distance vectors of highly pathogenic avian influenza virus (H5N1). Emerg Infect Dis 14:600–607 7. Luczo JM, Prosser DJ, Pantin-Jackwood MJ, Berlin AM, Spackman E (2020) The pathogenesis of a North American H5N2 clade 2.3.4.4 group A highly pathogenic avian influenza virus in surf scoters (Melanitta perspicillata). BMC Vet Res 16:351 8. Teitelbaum CS, Casazza ML, McDuie F, De La Cruz SEW, Overton CT, Hall LA, Matchett EL, Ackerman JT, Sullivan JD, Ramey AM, Prosser DJ (2023) Waterfowl recently infected with low pathogenic avian influenza exhibit reduced local movement and delayed migration. Ecosphere 14:e4432 9. Caliendo V, Leijten L, van de Bildt MWG, Poen MJ, Kok A, Bestebroer T, Richard M, Fouchier RAM, Kuiken T (2022) Long-term protective effect of serial infections with H5N8 highly pathogenic avian influenza virus in wild ducks. J Virol 96:e01233-22 10. Kleyheeg E, Slaterus R, Bodewes R, Rijks JM, Spierenburg MAH, Beerens N, Kelder L, Poen MJ, Stegeman JA, Fouchier RAM, Kuiken T, Van Der Jeugd HP (2017) Deaths among wild birds during highly pathogenic avian influenza A(H5N8) virus outbreak, the Netherlands. Emerg Infect Dis 23:2050–2054 11. Grund C, Hoffmann D, Ulrich R, Naguib M, Schinköthe J, Hoffmann B, Harder T, Saenger S, Zscheppang K, Tönnies M, Hippenstiel S, Hocke A, Wolff T, Beer M (2018) A novel European H5N8 influenza A virus has increased virulence in ducks but low zoonotic potential. Emerg Microbes Infect 7:132 12. Giacinti JA, Signore AV, Jones MEB, Bourque L, Lair S, Jardine C, Stevens B, Bollinger T, Goldsmith D, British Columbia Wildlife AIV Surveillance Pro- gram (BC WASP), Pybus M, Stasiak I, Davis R, Pople N, Nituch L, Brook RW, Ojkic D, Massé A, Dimitri-Masson G, Parsons GJ, Baker M, Yason C, Harms J, Jutha N, Neely J, Berhane Y, Lung O, French SK, Myers L, Provencher JF et al (2024) Avian influenza viruses in wild birds in Canada following incursions of highly pathogenic H5N1 virus from Eurasia in 2021–2022. MBio 15:e03203-23 13. Pohlmann A, King J, Fusaro A, Zecchin B, Banyard AC, Brown IH, Byrne AMP, Beerens N, Liang Y, Heutink R, Harders F, James J, Reid SM, Hansen https://doi.org/10.1186/s13567-024-01397-5 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13567-024-01397-5 Page 13 of 14Wight et al. Veterinary Research (2024) 55:154 RDE, Lewis NS, Hjulsager C, Larsen LE, Zohari S, Anderson K, Bröjer C, Nagy A, Savič V, Van Borm S, Steensels M, Briand F-X, Swieton E, Smietanka K, Grund C, Beer M, Harder T (2022) Has epizootic become enzootic? Evidence for a fundamental change in the infection dynamics of highly pathogenic avian influenza in Europe, 2021. MBio 13:e00609-22 14. Ramey AM, Hill NJ, DeLiberto TJ, Gibbs SEJ, Camille Hopkins M, Lang AS, Poulson RL, Prosser DJ, Sleeman JM, Stallknecht DE, Wan X (2022) Highly pathogenic avian influenza is an emerging disease threat to wild birds in North America. J Wildl Manage 86:e22171 15. Cattoli G, Monne I, Fusaro A, Joannis TM, Lombin LH, Aly MM, Arafa AS, Sturm-Ramirez KM, Couacy-Hymann E, Awuni JA, Batawui KB, Awoume KA, Aplogan GL, Sow A, Ngangnou AC, El Nasri Hamza IM, Gamatié D, Dauphin G, Domenech JM, Capua I (2009) Highly pathogenic avian influenza virus subtype H5N1 in Africa: a comprehensive phylogenetic analysis and molecular characterization of isolates. PLoS One 4:e4842 16. Ip HS, Torchetti MK, Crespo R, Kohrs P, DeBruyn P, Mansfield KG, Baszler T, Badcoe L, Bodenstein B, Shearn-Bochsler V, Killian ML, Pedersen JC, Hines N, Gidlewski T, DeLiberto T, Sleeman JM (2015) Novel Eurasian highly pathogenic avian influenza A H5 viruses in wild birds, Washington, USA, 2014. Emerg Infect Dis 21:886–890 17. Alkie TN, Cox S, Embury-Hyatt C, Stevens B, Pople N, Pybus MJ, Xu W, Hisanaga T, Suderman M, Koziuk J, Kruczkiewicz P, Nguyen HH, Fisher M, Lung O, Erdelyan CNG, Hochman O, Ojkic D, Yason C, Bravo-Araya M, Bourque L, Bollinger TK, Soos C, Giacinti J, Provencher J, Ogilvie S, Clark A, MacPhee R, Parsons GJ, Eaglesome H, Gilbert S et al (2023) Characteriza- tion of neurotropic HPAI H5N1 viruses with novel genome constellations and mammalian adaptive mutations in free-living mesocarnivores in Canada. Emerg Microbes Infect 12:2186608 18. European Food Safety Authority, European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, European Union Reference Laboratory for Avian Influenza, Adlhoch C, Fusaro A, Gonzales JL, Kuiken T, Marangon S, Mirinaviciute G, Niqueux É, Stahl K, Staubach C, Terregino C, Broglia A, Baldinelli F (2023) Avian influenza overview December 2022–March 2023. EFSA J 21:e07917 19. Jakobek BT, Berhane Y, Nadeau M-S, Embury-Hyatt C, Lung O, Xu W, Lair S (2023) Influenza A(H5N1) Virus infections in 2 free-ranging black bears (Ursus americanus), Quebec, Canada. Emerg Infect Dis 29:2145–2149 20. Puryear W, Sawatzki K, Hill N, Foss A, Stone JJ, Doughty L, Walk D, Gilbert K, Murray M, Cox E, Patel P, Mertz Z, Ellis S, Taylor J, Fauquier D, Smith A, DiGiovanni RA, Van De Guchte A, Gonzalez-Reiche AS, Khalil Z, Van Bakel H, Torchetti MK, Lantz K, Lenoch JB, Runstadler J (2023) Highly pathogenic avian influenza A(H5N1) virus outbreak in New England Seals, United States. Emerg Infect Dis 29:786–791 21. Arsnoe DM, Ip HS, Owen JC (2011) Influence of body condition on influ- enza A virus infection in mallard ducks: experimental infection data. PLoS One 6:e22633 22. Dannemiller NG, Webb CT, Wilson KR, Bentler KT, Mooers NL, Ellis JW, Root JJ, Franklin AB, Shriner SA (2017) Impact of body condition on influenza A virus infection dynamics in mallards following a secondary exposure. PLoS One 12:e0175757 23. Fereidouni S, Starick E, Beer M, Wilking H, Kalthoff D, Grund C, Häuslaigner R, Breithaupt A, Lange E, Harder TC (2009) Highly pathogenic avian influenza virus infection of mallards with homo- and heterosubtypic immunity induced by low pathogenic avian influenza viruses. PLoS One 4:e6706 24. Jourdain E, Gunnarsson G, Wahlgren J, Latorre-Margalef N, Bröjer C, Sahlin S, Svensson L, Waldenström J, Lundkvist Å, Olsen B (2010) Influenza virus in a natural host, the mallard: experimental infection data. PLoS One 5:e8935 25. Poen MJ, Verhagen JH, Manvell RJ, Brown I, Bestebroer TM, van der Vliet S, Vuong O, Scheuer RD, van der Jeugd HP, Nolet BA, Kleyheeg E, Müskens GJDM, Majoor FA, Grund C, Fouchier RAM (2016) Lack of virological and serological evidence for continued circulation of highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N8 virus in wild birds in the Netherlands, 14 November 2014 to 31 January 2016. Eurosurveillance 21:30349 26. Fereidouni S, Grund C, Hauslaigner R, Lange E, Wilking H, Harder TC, Beer M, Starick E (2010) Dynamics of specific antibody responses induced in mallards after infection by or immunization with low pathogenicity avian influenza viruses. Avian Dis 54:79–85 27. Shriner SA, Root JJ, Ellis JW, Bentler KT, VanDalen KK, Gidlewski T, Bevins SN (2022) Influenza A virus surveillance, infection and antibody persistence in snow geese (Anser caerulescens). Transbound Emerg Dis 69:742–752 28. Verhagen JH, van der Jeugd HP, Nolet BA, Slaterus R, Kharitonov SP, de Vries PP, Vuong O, Majoor F, Kuiken T, Fouchier RA (2015) Wild bird surveil- lance around outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza A(H5N8) virus in the Netherlands, 2014, within the context of global flyways. Eurosurveillance 20:21069 29. Tolf C, Latorre-Margalef N, Wille M, Bengtsson D, Gunnarsson G, Grosbois V, Hasselquist D, Olsen B, Elmberg J, Waldenström J (2013) Individual variation in influenza A virus infection histories and long-term immune responses in mallards. PLoS One 8:e61201 30. Wille M, Lisovski S, Roshier D, Ferenczi M, Hoye BJ, Leen T, Warner S, Fouchier RAM, Hurt AC, Holmes EC, Klaassen M (2023) Strong host phylo- genetic and ecological effects on host competency for avian influenza in Australian wild birds. Proc Biol Sci 290:20222237 31. Caliendo V, Lewis NS, Pohlmann A, Baillie SR, Banyard AC, Beer M, Brown IH, Fouchier RAM, Hansen RDE, Lameris TK, Lang AS, Laurendeau S, Lung O, Robertson G, van der Jeugd H, Alkie TN, Thorup K, van Toor ML, Waldenström J, Yason C, Kuiken T, Berhane Y (2022) Transatlantic spread of highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1 by wild birds from Europe to North America in 2021. Sci Rep 12:11729 32. Ashley EP, North NR, Petrie SA, Bailey RC (2006) Age determination of American Black ducks in winter and spring. Wildl Soc Bull 34:1401–1410 33. Pyle P (2008) Identification Guide to North American Birds. Part II: Anati- dae to Alcidae. Slate Creek Press, Bolinas, California 34. eBird (2023) eBird: An Online Database of Bird Distribution and Abun- dance. Accessed 22 Aug 2023 35. Yang M, Berhane Y, Salo T, Li M, Hole K, Clavijo A (2008) Development and application of monoclonal antibodies against avian influenza virus nucleoprotein. J Virol Methods 147:265–274 36. Brown JD, Stallknecht DE, Berghaus RD, Luttrell MP, Velek K, Kistler W, Costa T, Yabsley MJ, Swayne D (2009) Evaluation of a commercial block- ing enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay to detect avian influenza virus antibodies in multiple experimentally infected avian species. Clin Vaccine Immunol 16:824–829 37. Stallknecht DE, Kienzle-Dean C, Davis-Fields N, Jennelle CS, Bowman AS, Nolting JM, Boyce WM, Crum JM, Santos JJS, Brown JD, Prosser DJ, De La Cruz SEW, Ackerman JT, Casazza ML, Krauss S, Perez DR, Ramey AM, Poul- son RL (2020) Limited detection of antibodies to clade 2.3.4.4 A/Goose/ Guangdong/1/1996 lineage highly pathogenic H5 avian influenza virus in North American waterfowl. J Wildl Dis 56:47–57 38. Huang Y, Wille M, Dobbin A, Robertson GJ, Ryan P, Ojkic D, Whitney H, Lang AS (2013) A 4-year study of avian influenza virus prevalence and subtype diversity in ducks of Newfoundland, Canada. Can J Microbiol 59:701–708 39. Hochman O, Xu W, Yang M, Yang C, Ambagala A, Rogiewicz A, Wang JJ, Berhane Y (2023) Development and validation of competitive ELISA for detection of H5 hemagglutinin antibodies. Poultry 2:349–362 40. Spackman E (2020) Animal influenza virus: methods and protocols, 3rd edn. Humana New York, New York 41. Ramey AM, Hill NJ, Cline T, Plancarte M, De La Cruz S, Casazza ML, Acker- man JT, Fleskes JP, Vickers TW, Reeves AB, Gulland F, Fontaine C, Prosser DJ, Runstadler JA, Boyce WM (2017) Surveillance for highly pathogenic influenza A viruses in California during 2014–2015 provides insights into viral evolutionary pathways and the spatiotemporal extent of viruses in the Pacific Americas Flyway: Influenza A viruses in California during 2014–2015. Emerg Microbes Infect 6:e80 42. Ramey AM, Scott LC, Ahlstrom CA, Buck EJ, Williams AR, Kim Torchetti M, Stallknecht DE, Poulson RL (2024) Molecular detection and char- acterization of highly pathogenic H5N1 clade 2.3.4.4b avian influenza viruses among hunter-harvested wild birds provides evidence for three independent introductions into Alaska. Virology 589:109938 43. Teitelbaum CS, Ackerman JT, Hill MA, Satter JM, Casazza ML, De La Cruz SEW, Boyce WM, Buck EJ, Eadie JM, Herzog MP, Matchett EL, Overton CT, Peterson SH, Plancarte M, Ramey AM, Sullivan JD, Prosser DJ (2022) Avian influenza antibody prevalence increases with mercury contamination in wild waterfowl. Proc Biol Sci 289:20221312 44. Spackman E, Senne DA, Myers TJ, Bulaga LL, Garber LP, Perdue ML, Lohman K, Daum LT, Suarez DL (2002) Development of a real-time reverse transcriptase PCR assay for type A influenza virus and the avian H5 and H7 hemagglutinin subtypes. J Clin Microbiol 40:3256–3260 Page 14 of 14Wight et al. Veterinary Research (2024) 55:154 45. R Core Team (2021) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. 46. Wilke CO (2020) cowplot: Streamlined Plot Theme and Plot Annotations for “ggplot2.” 47. Dowle M, Srinivasan A (2021) data.table: Extension of "data.frame". 48. FC M, Davis TL, ggplot2 authors (2024) ggpattern: “ggplot2” Pattern Geoms. 49. Wickham H (2016) ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer, New York 50. Wickham H, Bryan J (2023) readxl: Read Excel Files. 51. Diskin ER, Friedman K, Krauss S, Nolting JM, Poulson RL, Slemons RD, Stallknecht DE, Webster RG, Bowman AS (2020) Subtype diversity of influenza A virus in North American waterfowl: a multidecade study. J Virol 94:e02022-19 52. Hollander LP, Fojtik A, Kienzle-Dean C, Davis-Fields N, Poulson RL, Davis B, Mowry C, Stallknecht DE (2018) Prevalence of influenza A viruses in ducks sampled in Northwestern Minnesota and evidence for predominance of H3N8 and H4N6 subtypes in mallards, 2007–2016. Avian Dis 63:126 53. Krauss S, Walker D, Pryor SP, Niles L, Chenghong L, Hinshaw VS, Webster RG (2004) Influenza A viruses of migrating wild aquatic birds in North America. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis 4:177–189 54. Sharp GB, Kawaoka Y, Wright SM, Turner B, Hinshaw V, Webster RG (1993) Wild ducks are the reservoir for only a limited number of influenza A subtypes. Epidemiol Infect 110:161–176 55. Provencher JF, Wilcox AAE, Gibbs S, Howes L-A, Mallory ML, Pybus M, Ramey AM, Reed ET, Sharp CM, Soos C, Stasiak I, Leafloor JO (2023) Bait- ing and banding: expert opinion on how bait trapping may influence the occurrence of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) among dabbling ducks. J Wildl Dis 59:590–600 56. Park AW (2012) Infectious disease in animal metapopulations: the importance of environmental transmission: infectious disease in animal metapopulations. Ecol Evol 2:1398–1407 57. Huang Y, Wille M, Dobbin A, Walzthöni NM, Robertson GJ, Ojkic D, Whit- ney H, Lang AS (2014) Genetic structure of avian influenza viruses from ducks of the Atlantic flyway of North America. PLoS One 9:e86999 58. Peck LE (2020) Survival and movements of American Black Ducks (Anas rubripes) and mallards (Anas platyrhynchos) wintering in Western Nova Scotia. Acadia University, Canada 59. Hill SC, Manvell RJ, Schulenburg B, Shell W, Wikramaratna PS, Perrins C, Sheldon BC, Brown IH, Pybus OG (2016) Antibody responses to avian influenza viruses in wild birds broaden with age. Proc Biol Sci 283:20162159 60. Ineson KM, Hill NJ, Clark DE, MacKenzie KG, Whitney JJ, Laskaris Y, Ronconi RA, Ellis JC, Giroux J-F, Lair S, Stevens S, Puryear WB, Runstadler JA (2022) Age and season predict influenza A virus dynamics in urban gulls: conse- quences for natural hosts in unnatural landscapes. Ecol Appl 32:e2497 61. Baldassarre G (2014) Ducks, Geese, and Swans of North America. Johns Hopkins University Press 62. Huang Y, Wille M, Benkaroun J, Munro H, Bond AL, Fifield DA, Robertson GJ, Ojkic D, Whitney H, Lang AS (2014) Perpetuation and reassort- ment of gull influenza A viruses in Atlantic North America. Virology 456–457:353–363 63. Benkaroun J, Shoham D, Kroyer ANK, Whitney H, Lang AS (2016) Analysis of influenza A viruses from gulls: an evaluation of inter-regional move- ments and interactions with other avian and mammalian influenza A viruses. Cogent Biol 2:1234957 64. Wille M, Robertson GJ, Whitney H, Ojkic D, Lang AS (2011) Reassortment of American and Eurasian genes in an influenza A virus isolated from a great black-backed gull (Larus marinus), a species demonstrated to move between these regions. Arch Virol 156:107–115 65. Helin AS, Wille M, Atterby C, Järhult JD, Waldenström J, Chapman JR (2018) A rapid and transient innate immune response to avian influenza infection in mallards. Mol Immunol 95:64–72 66. Hénaux V, Samuel MD (2011) Avian influenza shedding patterns in waterfowl: implications for surveillance, environmental transmission, and disease spread. J Wildl Dis 47:566–578 67. Van Der Goot JA, De Jong MCM, Koch G, Van Boven M (2003) Comparison of the transmission characteristics of low and high pathogenicity avian influenza A virus (H5N2). Epidemiol Infect 131:1003–1013 68. Kida H, Yanagawa R, Matsuoka Y (1980) Duck influenza lacking evidence of disease signs and immune response. Infect Immun 30:547–553 69. Berhane Y, Leith M, Embury-Hyatt C, Neufeld J, Babiuk S, Hisanaga T, Kehler H, Hooper-McGrevy K, Pasick J (2010) Studying possible cross- protection of Canada geese preexposed to North American low patho- genicity avian influenza virus strains (H3N8, H4N6, and H5N2) against an H5N1 highly pathogenic avian influenza challenge. Avian Dis 54:548–554 70. Costa TP, Brown JD, Howerth EW, Stallknecht DE, Swayne DE (2011) Homo- and heterosubtypic low pathogenic avian influenza exposure on H5N1 highly pathogenic avian influenza virus infection in wood ducks (Aix sponsa). PLoS One 6:e15987 71. Koethe S, Ulrich L, Ulrich R, Amler S, Graaf A, Harder TC, Grund C, Mettenleiter TC, Conraths FJ, Beer M, Globig A (2020) Modulation of lethal HPAIV H5N8 clade 2.3.4.4B infection in AIV pre-exposed mallards. Emerg Microbes Infect 9:180–193 72. Robb JR, Tori GM, Kroll RW (2001) Condition indices of live-trapped American black ducks and mallards. J Wildl Manag 65:755–764 73. CFIA NEOC GIS Services (2023) High Pathogenicity Avian Influenza in Wildlife. https:// cfia- ncr. maps. arcgis. com/ apps/ dashb oards/ 89c77 9e98c df492 c899d f23e1 c38fd bc. Accessed 24 Aug 2023 74. Kent CM, Ramey AM, Ackerman JT, Bahl J, Bevins SN, Bowman AS, Boyce WM, Cardona CJ, Casazza ML, Cline TD, De La Cruz ES, Hall JS, Hill NJ, Ip HS, Krauss S, Mullinax JM, Nolting JM, Plancarte M, Poulson RL, Runstadler JA, Slemons RD, Stallknecht DE, Sullivan JD, Takekawa JY, Webby RJ, Web- ster RG, Prosser DJ (2022) Spatiotemporal changes in influenza A virus prevalence among wild waterfowl inhabiting the continental United States throughout the annual cycle. Sci Rep 12:13083 75. Latorre-Margalef N, Gunnarsson G, Munster VJ, Fouchier RAM, Osterhaus ADME, Elmberg J, Olsen B, Wallensten A, Haemig PD, Fransson T, Brudin L, Waldenström J (2009) Effects of influenza A virus infection on migrating mallard ducks. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 276:1029–1036 76. Staszewski V, McCoy KD, Tveraa T, Boulinier T (2007) Interannual dynamics of antibody levels in naturally infected long-lived colonial birds. Ecology 88:3183–3191 Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in pub- lished maps and institutional affiliations. https://cfia-ncr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/dashboards/89c779e98cdf492c899df23e1c38fdbc https://cfia-ncr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/dashboards/89c779e98cdf492c899df23e1c38fdbc Avian influenza virus circulation and immunity in a wild urban duck population prior to and during a highly pathogenic H5N1 outbreak Abstract Introduction Materials and methods Bird capture and sampling Observations of wild bird movements Bird banding and encounter data Sampling periods Serology Swab samples and RNA extraction Screening for influenza A viruses Classification of individual infection status Statistical analysis and data visualization Results Samples collected and used in the study Movement patterns of banded ducks Changes in population seroprevalence over time Immune responses in currently infected individuals Changes in serology of two recaptured ducks Discussion Changes in seroprevalence over time Relationship between viral load and antibody levels Immune responses in individuals with active infections Serological changes in two recaptured ducks Summary, conclusions, and future directions Acknowledgements References