Literature DB >> 17032365

Are ectoparasite communities structured? Species co-occurrence, temporal variation and null models.

Boris R Krasnov1, Michal Stanko, Serge Morand.   

Abstract

1. We studied temporal variation in the structure of flea communities on small mammalian hosts from eastern Slovakia using null models. We asked (a) whether flea co-occurrences in infracommunities (in the individual hosts) in different hosts as well as in the component communities (in the host species) demonstrate a non-random pattern; (b) whether this pattern is indicative of either positive or negative flea species interactions; (c) whether this pattern varies temporally; and (d) whether the expression of this pattern is related to population size of either fleas or hosts or both. 2. We constructed a presence/absence matrix of flea species for each temporal sample of a host species and calculated four metrics of co-occurrence, namely the C-score, the number of checkerboard species pairs, the number of species combinations and the variance ratio (V-ratio). Then we compared these metrics with the respective indices calculated for 5000 null matrices that were assembled randomly using two algorithms, namely fixed-fixed (FF) and fixed-equiprobable (FE). 3. Most co-occurrence metrics calculated for real data did not differ significantly from the metrics calculated for simulated matrices using the FF algorithm. However, the indices observed for 42 of 75 presence/absence matrices differed significantly from the null expectations for the FE models. Non-randomness was detected mainly by the C-score and V-ratio metrics. In all cases, the direction of non-randomness was the same, namely the aggregation, not competition, of flea species in host individuals and host species. 4. The inclusion or exclusion of the uninfested hosts in the FE models did not affect the results for individual host species. However, exclusion of the uninfested host species led to the acceptance of the null hypothesis for only six of 13 temporal samples of the component flea communities for which non-randomness was detected when the uninfested hosts were included in the analysis. 5. In most host species, the absolute values of the standardized size effect of both the C-score and V-ratio increased with an increase in host density and a concomitant decrease in flea abundance and prevalence. 6. Results of this study demonstrated that (a) flea assemblages on small mammalian hosts were structured at some times, whereas they appeared to be randomly assembled at other times; (b) whenever non-randomness of flea co-occurrences was detected, it suggested aggregation but never segregation of flea species in host individuals or populations; and (c) the expression of structure in flea assemblages depended on the level of density of both fleas and hosts.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17032365     DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2006.01156.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Anim Ecol        ISSN: 0021-8790            Impact factor:   5.091


  13 in total

1.  Male hosts drive infracommunity structure of ectoparasites.

Authors:  Boris R Krasnov; Michal Stanko; Sonja Matthee; Anne Laudisoit; Herwig Leirs; Irina S Khokhlova; Natalia P Korallo-Vinarskaya; Maxim V Vinarski; Serge Morand
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2011-03-16       Impact factor: 3.225

2.  Body size and ecological traits in fleas parasitic on small mammals in the Palearctic: larger species attain higher abundance.

Authors:  Elena N Surkova; Elizabeth M Warburton; Luther van der Mescht; Irina S Khokhlova; Boris R Krasnov
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2018-07-25       Impact factor: 3.225

3.  Community structure of helminth parasites in two closely related South African rodents differing in sociality and spatial behaviour.

Authors:  Andrea Spickett; Kerstin Junker; Boris R Krasnov; Voitto Haukisalmi; Sonja Matthee
Journal:  Parasitol Res       Date:  2017-07-01       Impact factor: 2.289

4.  Temporal variation of metacommunity structure in arthropod ectoparasites harboured by small mammals: the effects of scale and climatic fluctuations.

Authors:  Boris R Krasnov; Natalia Korallo-Vinarskaya; Maxim V Vinarski; Irina S Khokhlova
Journal:  Parasitol Res       Date:  2022-01-25       Impact factor: 2.289

Review 5.  Rich but random: parasite communities of snouted treefrog, Scinax fuscovarius (Anura: Hylidae), in Bodoquena Mountains, western Brazil.

Authors:  I C O Silva; P Soares; A C A Ribas; D J Santana; K M Campião; L E R Tavares
Journal:  Parasitol Res       Date:  2021-11-25       Impact factor: 2.289

6.  Fungal-fungal associations affect the assembly of endophyte communities in maize (Zea mays).

Authors:  Jean J Pan; Georgiana May
Journal:  Microb Ecol       Date:  2009-06-12       Impact factor: 4.552

7.  Experimental evidence of negative interspecific interactions among imago fleas: flea and host identities matter.

Authors:  Irina S Khokhlova; Elizabeth M Dlugosz; Boris R Krasnov
Journal:  Parasitol Res       Date:  2015-11-11       Impact factor: 2.289

8.  Predictors for abundance of host flea and floor flea in households of villages with endemic commensal rodent plague, Yunnan Province, China.

Authors:  Jia-Xiang Yin; Alan Geater; Virasakdi Chongsuvivatwong; Xing-Qi Dong; Chun-Hong Du; You-Hong Zhong
Journal:  PLoS Negl Trop Dis       Date:  2011-03-29

9.  Nestedness of ectoparasite-vertebrate host networks.

Authors:  Sean P Graham; Hassan K Hassan; Nathan D Burkett-Cadena; Craig Guyer; Thomas R Unnasch
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2009-11-18       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Parasite counts or parasite incidences? Testing differences with four analyses of infracommunity modelling for seven parasite-host associations.

Authors:  Boris R Krasnov; Andrea Spickett; Kerstin Junker; Sergei V Bugmyrin; Evgeny P Ieshko; Lubov A Bespyatova; Michal Stanko; Irina S Khokhlova; Sonja Matthee
Journal:  Parasitol Res       Date:  2021-06-17       Impact factor: 2.289

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.