Maria Foti, Antonietta Mascetti, Vittorio Fisichella, Egidio Fulco, Bianca Maria Orlandella, Francesco Lo Piccolo. 2017: Antibiotic resistance assessment in bacteria isolated in migratory Passeriformes transiting through the Metaponto territory (Basilicata, Italy). Avian Research, 8(1): 26.
Citation:
Maria Foti, Antonietta Mascetti, Vittorio Fisichella, Egidio Fulco, Bianca Maria Orlandella, Francesco Lo Piccolo. 2017: Antibiotic resistance assessment in bacteria isolated in migratory Passeriformes transiting through the Metaponto territory (Basilicata, Italy). Avian Research, 8(1): 26.
Maria Foti, Antonietta Mascetti, Vittorio Fisichella, Egidio Fulco, Bianca Maria Orlandella, Francesco Lo Piccolo. 2017: Antibiotic resistance assessment in bacteria isolated in migratory Passeriformes transiting through the Metaponto territory (Basilicata, Italy). Avian Research, 8(1): 26.
Citation:
Maria Foti, Antonietta Mascetti, Vittorio Fisichella, Egidio Fulco, Bianca Maria Orlandella, Francesco Lo Piccolo. 2017: Antibiotic resistance assessment in bacteria isolated in migratory Passeriformes transiting through the Metaponto territory (Basilicata, Italy). Avian Research, 8(1): 26.
Wild birds are considered to be reservoirs of human enteric pathogens and vectors of antimicrobial resistance dissemination in the environment. During their annual migration, they play a potential role in the epidemiology of human associated zoonoses. The aim of this study was to investigate the frequency of isolation and antimicrobial susceptibility profiles of microorganisms found in the cloaca of common European passerines.
Methods
One hundred and twenty-one cloacal swabs were collected during a monitoring program of migratory birds in the Forest Reserve for Protection pMetapontoq (Basilicata, Italy). All samples were cultured using standard bacteriological methods and antibiotic susceptibility testing (agar disk diffusion test) of isolated strains was performed.
Results
The bacteriological analysis produced 122 strains belonging to 18 different species. The most commonly isolated species were Enterobacter cloacae and Providencia rettgeri (21 strains, 17.2%). Potentially pathogenic species including Klebsiella pneumoniae, Serratia marcescens and Pseudomonas spp. have also been identified. Isolates showed significant frequencies of antimicrobial resistance. The highest frequency of resistance was observed against amoxicillin (n = 79, 64.8%); ampicillin (n = 77, 63.1%); rifampicin (n = 75, 61.5%); amoxicillin-clavulanic acid (n = 66, 54.1%). Thirty-one strains (25.4%) showed resistance to imipenem and 8 (6.6%) to meropenem.
Conclusions
Migratory birds play an important role in the ecology, circulation and dissemination of potentially pathogenic antimicrobial resistant organisms. They can therefore be considered sentinel species and environmental health indicators. Our results suggest that the integration of epidemiological surveillance networks during ringing campaigns of wild species can be an effective tool to study this phenomenon.
Sound is widely used by animals for communication (Bradbury and Vehrencamp, 1998). Recently, a rapid expanding field in the study of animal communication is the use of ultrasonic (> 20 kHz) signals in terrestrial vertebrates (Arch and Narins, 2008). To this end, one of the more surprising groups shown to use ultrasound is amphibians (Narins and Feng, 2006), which, in the past, were thought to be unable to hear high frequency sounds (Pettigrew et al., 1981). However increasingly, evidence suggests that some frogs are capable of using ultrasonic vocalizations for communication (Feng et al., 2006; Arch et al., 2008; Arch et al., 2009).
However, the recent findings of ultrasonic communication in vertebrates (especially those in amphibians) suggest that communication approaches in the animal kingdom may be far more complex than previously thought. As birds are among those of which vocalizations are known to be most complicated (Dooling et al., 2002), it is therefore necessary and prudent to re-examine whether their vocalizations carry ultrasonic information. Normally, studies of avian vocalizations use standard recording equipment, with the upper limits of their frequency response seldom over 20 kHz. In our study, we used ultrasound detectors to conduct an investigation of the vocalizations of birds, aiming to detect whether ultrasonic vocalizations are common in birds.
Methods
All the avian sounds were recorded in the Dongzhai National Nature Reserve (31.95°N, 114.25°E; elevation 100–840 m) between January and March 2008, in June 2009 and December 2010. This reserve is located in the south of Henan Province of central China and within range of the Dabieshan Mountains. It is at the transitional region between the subtropical zone and the temperate zone and characterized by a rich avian diversity.
The sounds were recorded with either a Pettersson Bat Detector D980 (frequency range 10–200 kHz) or a D1000X (frequency range 5–235 kHz) (Pettersson Elektronik AB, Sweden). The detector D980 was connected to a laptop and sounds were recorded, using BatSound Pro software (Pettersson Elektronik AB, Sweden) and loaded onto the hard drive of the laptop. The D1000X is equipped with a built-in 16-bit recording system and stores sound as WAV files on a compact flash card and does therefore not require a laptop connection. We recorded bird vocalizations either in the field, or when the birds were temporarily caged. The target species was randomly chosen, depending on which species were found in the field or captured by mist nets. Distances to the birds varied from < 2 m for captive species to > 10 m for some species in the field. The sampling rates of the recordings were 100, 110, 192, 200, 300 or 384 kHz. The reason for the use of these many sampling frequencies was because we had no prior knowledge of the frequency range of the vocalization of a given species; thus they were usually selected in a tentative way. Spectrograms of the sounds were produced and checked for their frequency range with BatSound Pro. We selected spectrograms that were typical of the species to present in this paper.
Results
The vocalizations of 14 avian species were recorded (Table 1) and spectra of the selected vocaliztions are shown in Fig. 1.
Table
1.
Summary of the types of the avian vocalizations and recording sites
Figure
1.
Sound spectra and instantaneous amplitude spectra [insets, taken at indicated points (▲)] of the vocalizations of 14 avian species. The horizontal axis in the sound spectra represents the time (ms) and the vertical axis the frequency (kHz), while in the insets, the horizontal axis represents frequency (kHz) and the vertical axis amplitude (dB). The horizontal lines in the panels separate the ultrasonic and audible components of the vocalizations.
No bird was detected to produce pure ultrasonic calls. However, each bird vocaliztion contained more or less high frequency harmonics which approached or exceeded the audible limit of humans (20 kHz). The frequency of the harmonics of the Black-throated Tit and the Yellow-bellied Tit reached 40 kHz. It is noteworthy that despite a decreasing trend, the ultrasound components in some species, such as the White-crowned Forktail, Black-throated Tit, Long-tailed Tit and Yellow-bellied Tit, still carried significant energy, which was somewhat comparable to that of the fundamental components in their vocalizations (Fig. 1).
Discussion
Batsound detectors D980 and D1000X were able to record sounds with the highest frequency up to 200 kHz. During the study, we adopted sampling rates of at least 100 kHz, making the Nyquist frequencies at least 50 kHz, far exceeding the frequency range of human hearing. Therefore both the equipment and the sampling rates enabled us to detect ultrasonic components in avian vocalizations if there were any. In the vocalizations of 14 avian species, we demonstrated that they contained varying degrees of high frequency components and in several species, the frequency of the harmonics reached the ultrasonic range. As the energy of sounds decreased with an increase in the distance between recorder and producer, one limitation of the study became apparent in that the sounds of half of the species were recorded in the field, thus the highest frequency of some of the vocalizations shown in Fig. 1 might be lower than they actually were due to the effect of distance. However, this potential error could not conceal the fact of the existence of high frequency components in avian vocalizations, since the actual frequency might be even higher than those shown.
Because the harmonics in some species carried non-neglectable energy, the question arises as to why they produce those high frequency sounds if they have no function. Higher frequency vocalizations may be used adaptively to enhance the signal-to-noise ratio (Arch and Narins, 2008). It has been shown that in the Concave-eared Torrent Frog (Amolops tormotus), ultrasound communication is adopted to avoid masking by the wideband background noise of local fast-flowing streams where the species lives (Feng et al., 2006). In birds, there is also evidence that they may adjust the frequency of their vocalization in adaptation response to a noisy environment. Take the Great Tits for example, they have a higher minimum frequency of their songs at noisy locations, presumably to prevent their songs from being masked to some extent by the predominantly low-frequency ambient noise (Slabbekoorn and Peet, 2003). Therefore, it is reasonable to speculate that communication by high frequency vocalization might be favored by natural selection for species living in noisy environments, such as the White-crowned Forktail and Plumbeous Water Redstart, which live near streams.
However, the properties of high-frequency sounds such as limitation in long-distance signaling, directionality and susceptibility to scattering, may limit their use in communication (Smith, 1979; Arch and Narins, 2008). One may also argue that the high frequency harmonics are just byproducts of the sound production mechanism (Roverud, 1989), or they could just be providing a significant component to the tonal quality (Thorpe and Griffin, 1962). Despite these arguments, high frequency signals have their advantages under certain circumstances. They do not spread far and are therefore hard for predators and competitors to detect. Selective pressure may therefore favor their use in the presence of predators (Wilson and Hare, 2004; Wilson and Hare, 2006) and in communication for interactions between individuals at close quarters (Smith, 1979; Arch and Narins, 2008). Studies of Richardson's Ground Squirrels (Spermophilus richardsonii) have demonstrated the use of high frequency sound communication for predator avoidance. The squirrels can produce "whisper" calls containing pure ultrasonic frequencies of around 50 kHz, to warn nearby conspecifics of potential danger (Wilson and Hare, 2004; Wilson and Hare, 2006). In the present study, the call of a Great Tit was recorded when it alarmed its partner of our access. In the field, this call was also often heard when there were aerial predators, such as hawks, passing by the area. Since it contained significant energy both in fundamental and high frequency components (Fig. 1), this kind of alarm call may be more efficient to transmit information of the threat from signalers to their close conspecifics, before being heard by the predators.
One study has suggested birds are capable of discriminating harmonic complex (Dooling et al., 2002). The songs of the Yellow-bellied Tit inspired another idea about the function of these high frequency harmonics: could the high frequency harmonics signal individual quality? The spectrogram of the Yellow-bellied Tit in our study was recorded from a captive individual when it was singing. In the field, we noticed such singing often occurred when Yellow-bellied Tits were in flocks and displayed to each other. We therefore suggest these complex harmonic components in birds may carry information related to individual quality.
Currently, we cannot rule out any of these and/or other possibilities for the function of high frequency harmonics in avian vocalizations. It is clear that additional studies are needed to determine the functions of these high-frequency components. For example, playbacks of avian vocalizations, of which the lower frequency components have been filtered out, should be used to test whether species that are capable of producing high frequency vocalizations are able to hear them. If they have the ability to hear high frequency sounds, further experiments should then be designed to test possible adaptive hypotheses such as predator avoidance and choice of mates. Besides, although previous studies using electrophysiological approaches concluded that the sensitive frequency of birds was between 1–5 kHz (Dooling, 1978), other studies found that the upper limit of their hearing is usually at 20 kHz (reached after conditioning) and cochlear potentials have been detected at 25–30 kHz by using greater intensities of sound (Schwartzkopff, 1955). We therefore agree with Narins et al. (2004) that a systematic re-examination of avian hearing ability is required.
The 14 avian species involved in our study were from eight families of Passeriforms and one family of Galliformes, suggesting such high frequency harmonics exist at least in the vocalizations of some avian lineages such as Paridae, Aegithalidae and Emberizidae. Due to the small sample of the species, however, it is hard for us to conclude in which groups of avian species these high frequency components are more prevalent. As a result, we encourage more studies to be conducted in this area to explore the prevalence of high frequency vocalization in avian communication.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Basic Research Program of China (No. 2007CB41 1606). We thank Jinshuo ZHANG, Junxian SHEN, Canwei XIA, Yang QIU, Jiajun YING for their valuable help with the work, as well as Yang LIU and anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions to our manuscript.
Abulreesh H, Goulder R, Scott GW. Wild birds and human pathogens in the context of ringing and migration. Ringing Migr. 2007;23:193–200.
Allen HK, Donato J, Wang HH, Cloud-Hansen KA, Davies J, Handelsman J. Call of the wild: antibiotic resistance genes in natural environments. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2010;8:251–9.
Bangert RL, Ward ACS, Stauber EH, Cho BR, Widders PR. A survey of the aerobic bacteria in the feces of captive raptors. Avian Dis. 1988;32:53–62.
Bauer AW, Kirby WM, Sherris JC, Turck M. Antibiotic susceptibility testing by a standardized single disk method. Am J Clin Pathol. 1966;45:493–6.
Benskin CM, Wilson K, Jones K, Hartley IR. Bacterial pathogens in wild birds: a review of the frequency and effects of infection. Biol Rev. 2009;84:349–73.
Blanco G, Lemus JA, Grande J. Microbial pollution in wildlife: linking agricultural manuring and bacterial antibiotic resistance in red-billed choughs. Environ Res. 2009;109:405–12.
Bonnedahl J, Drobni M, Gauthier-Clerc M, Hernandez J, Granholm S, Kayser Y, Melhus A, Kahlmeter G, Waldenstrom J, Johansson A, Olsen B. Dissemination of Escherichia coli with CTX-M Type ESBL between humans and yellow-legged gulls in the South of France. PLoS ONE. 2009;4:e5958.
Brittingham MC, Temple SA, Duncan RM. A survey of the prevalence of selected bacteria in wild birds. J Wildl Dis. 1988;24:299–307.
Camarda A, Circella E, Pennelli D, Madio A, Bruni G, Lagrasta V, Marzano G, Mallia E, Campagnari E. Wild birds as biological indicators of environmental pollution: biotyping and antimicrobial resistance patterns of Escherichia coli isolated from Audouin's gulls (Larus audouinii) living in the Bay of Gallipoli (Italy). Ital J Anim Sci. 2006;5:287–90.
Clinical and Laboratory Standards (CLSI). Performance standards for antimicrobial disk and dilution susceptibility tests for bacteria isolated from animals; approved standard. VET01-A4. 4th Ed. 2013; Wayne, PA, USA.
Elmberg J, Berg C, Lerner H, Waldenström J, Hessel R. Potential disease transmission from wild geese and swans to livestock, poultry and humans: a review of the scientific literature from a one health perspective. Infect Ecol Epidemiol. 2017;7:1300450.
Foti M, Rinaldo D, Guercio A, Giacopello C, Aleo A, De Leo F, Fisichella V, Mammina C. Pathogenic microorganism carried by migratory birds passing through the territory of the Island of Ustica, Sicily (Italy). Avian Pathol. 2011;40:405–9.
Giacopello C, Foti M, Mascetti A, Grosso F, Ricciardi D, Fisichella V, Lo Piccolo F. Antimicrobial resistance patterns of Enterobacteriaceae in European wild bird species admitted in a wildlife rescue centre. Vet Ital. 2016;52:139–44.
Glunder G. Occurrence of Enterobacteriaceae in feces of granivorous passeriform birds. Avian Dis. 1981;25:195–8.
Gudeta DD, Bortolaia V, Amos G, Wellington EM, Brandt KK, Poirel L, Nielsen JB, Westh H, Guardabassi L. The soil microbiota harbors a diversity of carbapenem-hydrolyzing β-lactamases of potential clinical relevance. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2015;60:151–60.
Guenther S, Grobbel M, Lubke-Becker A, Goedecke A, Friedrich ND, Wieler LH, Ewers C. Antimicrobial resistance profiles of Escherichia coli from common European wild bird species. Vet Microbial. 2010;144:219–25.
Hubálek Z. An annotated checklist of pathogenic microorganisms associated with migratory birds. J Wildl Dis. 2004;40:639–59.
Jarhult JD, Stedt J, Gustafsson L. Zero prevalence of extend spectrum beta-lactamase-producing bacteria in 300 breeding Collared Flycatchers in Sweden. Infect Ecol Epidemiol. 2013;3:20909.
Köck R, Kreienbrock L, van Duijkeren E, Schwarz S. Antimicrobial resistance at the interface of human and veterinary medicine. Vet Microbiol. 2017;200:1–5.
Liofilchem®. Antibiotic disc interpretative criteria and quality control—Rev.12. 2016. . Accessed 30 Jun 2016.
Literak I, Dolejska M, Janoszowska D, Hrusakova J, Meissner W, Rzyska H, Bzoma S. Cizek A Antibiotic resistant Escherichia coli bacteria, including strains with genes encoding the extended-spectrum beta-lactamase and QnrS, in waterbirds on the Baltic Sea Coast of Poland. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2010;76:8126–34.
Magda AM, Mohamad NM, Maysa AI, Merwad AM, Rasha MA, Rasha MM, Rehab E. Prevalence of Enterobacteriaceae in wild birds and humans at Sharkia Province; With special reference to the genetic relationship between E.coli and Salmonella isolates determined by protein profile analysis. J Am Sci. 2013;9:173–83.
Matias CA, Pereira IA, Reis EM, Rodrigues DD, Siciliano S. Frequency of zoonotic bacteria among illegally traded wild birds in Rio de Janeiro. Braz J Microbiol. 2016;47:882–8.
Nesme J, Simonet P. The soil resistome: a critical review on antibiotic resistance origins, ecology and dissemination potential in telluric bacteria. Environ Microbiol. 2015;17:913–30.
Pindi PK, Yadav PR, Shanker AS. Identification of opportunistic pathogenic bacteria in drinking water samples of different rural health and their clinical impacts on humans. Biomed Res Int. 2013. doi: .
Pinto A, Simões R, Oliveira M, Vaz-Pires P, Brandão R, da Costa PM. Multidrug resistance in wild bird populations: importance of the food chain. J Zoo Wildl Med. 2015;46:723–31.
Radhouani H, Poeta P, Gonçalves A, Pacheco R, Sargo R, Igrejas G. Wild birds as biological indicators of environmental pollution: antimicrobial resistance patterns of Escherichia coli and enterococci isolated from common buzzards (Buteo Buteo). J Med Microbiol. 2012;61:837–43.
Reed KD, Meece JK, Henkel JS, Shukla SK. Birds, migration and emerging zoonoses: west Nile virus, Lyme disease, influenza A and enteropathogens. Clin Med Res. 2003;1:5–12.
Reslinski A, Gospodarek E, Mikucka A. Prevalence of multidrug-resistant Proteus spp. strains in clinical specimens and their susceptibility to antibiotics. Med Dosw Mikrobiol. 2005;57:175–84.
Schwarz S, Silley P, Simjee S, Woodford N, van Duijkeren E, Johnson AP, Gaastra W. Editorial: assessing the antimicrobial susceptibility of bacteria obtained from animals. Vet Microbiol. 2010;65:601–4.
Shobrak MY, Abo-Amer AE. Role of wild birds as carriers of multi-drug resistant Escherichia coli and Escherichia vulneris. Braz J Microbiol. 2015;45:1199–209.
Silva N, Felgar A, Goncalves A, Correia S, Pacheco R, Araújo C, Igrejas G, Poeta P. Absence of extended-spectrum-betalactamase-producing Escherichia coli isolates in migratory birds: song thrush (Turdus philomelos). J Antimicrob Chemother. 2010;65:1306–7.
Skurnik D, Ruimy R, Andremont A, Amorin C, Rouquet P, Picard B, Denamur E. Effect of human vicinity on antimicrobial resistance and integrons in animal faecal Escherichia coli. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2006;57:1215–9.
Steele CM, Brown RN, Botzler RG. Prevalences of zoonotic bacteria among seabirds in rehabilitation centers along the Pacific Coast of California and Washington, USA. J Wildl Dis. 2005;41:735–44.
Thaller MC, Migliore L, Marquez C, Tapia W, Cedeno V, Rossolini GM, Gentile G. Tracking acquired antibiotic resistance in commensal bacteria of Galapagos land iguanas: no man, no resistance. PLoS ONE. 2010;5:e8989.
Wellington EM, Boxall AB, Cross P, Feil EJ, Gaze WH, Hawkey PM, Johnson-Rollings AS, Jones DL, Lee NM, Otten W, Thomas CM, Williams AP. The role of the natural environment in the emergence of antibiotic resistance in gram-negative bacteria. Lancet Infect Dis. 2013;13:155–65.
Aleksandra Kobuszewska, Beata Wysok. Pathogenic Bacteria in Free-Living Birds, and Its Public Health Significance. Animals, 2024, 14(6): 968.
DOI:10.3390/ani14060968
2.
Lizeth N. Raygoza-Alcantar, Leopoldo Díaz-Pérez, Verónica C. Rosas-Espinoza, et al. In vitro antagonistic activity of Bacillus spp. and Pseudomonas putida M5 isolated from feces of the violet-crowned hummingbird (Ramosomyia violiceps) from an urban environment. Symbiosis, 2024.
DOI:10.1007/s13199-024-00998-0
3.
Xing Li, Shakeel Mowlaboccus, Bethany Jackson, et al. Antimicrobial Resistance Among Clinically Significant Bacteria in Wildlife: An Overlooked One Health Concern. International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, 2024, 64(3): 107251.
DOI:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2024.107251
4.
Tamara Pasqualina Russo, Adriano Minichino, Antonio Gargiulo, et al. Prevalence and Phenotypic Antimicrobial Resistance among ESKAPE Bacteria and Enterobacterales Strains in Wild Birds. Antibiotics, 2022, 11(12): 1825.
DOI:10.3390/antibiotics11121825
5.
Alexandra Chiaverini, Alessandra Cornacchia, Gabriella Centorotola, et al. Phenotypic and Genetic Characterization of Klebsiella pneumoniae Isolates from Wild Animals in Central Italy. Animals, 2022, 12(11): 1347.
DOI:10.3390/ani12111347
6.
E. Akhil Prakash, Tereza Hromádková, T. Jabir, et al. Dissemination of multidrug resistant bacteria to the polar environment - Role of the longest migratory bird Arctic tern (Sterna paradisaea). Science of The Total Environment, 2022, 815: 152727.
DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.152727
7.
Valentina Virginia Ebani, Lisa Guardone, Fabrizio Bertelloni, et al. Survey on the Presence of Bacterial and Parasitic Zoonotic Agents in the Feces of Wild Birds. Veterinary Sciences, 2021, 8(9): 171.
DOI:10.3390/vetsci8090171
8.
Freddie-Jeanne Richard, India Southern, Mari Gigauri, et al. Warning on nine pollutants and their effects on avian communities. Global Ecology and Conservation, 2021, 32: e01898.
DOI:10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01898
9.
Valeria Gargano, Delia Gambino, Sergio Migliore, et al. Can Human Handling Increase the Presence of Multidrug Resistance (MDR) in Salmonella spp. Isolated from Food Sources?. Microorganisms, 2021, 9(10): 2018.
DOI:10.3390/microorganisms9102018
10.
S. Piva, F. Giacometti, E. Marti, et al. Could honey bees signal the spread of antimicrobial resistance in the environment?. Letters in Applied Microbiology, 2020, 70(5): 349.
DOI:10.1111/lam.13288
11.
Fabrizio Bertelloni, Giovanni Cilia, Samantha Bogi, et al. Pathotypes and Antimicrobial Susceptibility of Escherichia Coli Isolated from Wild Boar (Sus scrofa) in Tuscany. Animals, 2020, 10(4): 744.
DOI:10.3390/ani10040744
12.
Piotr Tryjanowski, Jacek J. Nowakowski, Piotr Indykiewicz, et al. Campylobacter in wintering great tits Parus major in Poland. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2020, 27(7): 7570.
DOI:10.1007/s11356-019-07502-y
13.
Luis Salvador Monticelli, Franco Decembrini, Alessandro Bergamasco, et al. Water quality assessment of transitional and coastal marine Sicilian waters (Italy): Ecological and epidemiological significance of multiple antimicrobial resistant Enterococcus spp.. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 2019, 217: 173.
DOI:10.1016/j.ecss.2018.11.021
14.
Xiaoping Liao, Run-Shi Yang, Jing Xia, et al. High colonization rate of a novel carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella lineage among migratory birds at Qinghai Lake, China. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, 2019, 74(10): 2895.
DOI:10.1093/jac/dkz268
15.
Barbara Turchi, Marta Dec, Fabrizio Bertelloni, et al. Antibiotic Susceptibility and Virulence Factors inEscherichia colifrom Sympatric Wildlife of the Apuan Alps Regional Park (Tuscany, Italy). Microbial Drug Resistance, 2019, 25(5): 772.
DOI:10.1089/mdr.2018.0191
DownLoad:
Email Alerts
RSS Feeds