| Literature DB >> 23985326 |
Freya Van Kesteren1, Alexander Mastin, Bermet Mytynova, Iskender Ziadinov, Belgees Boufana, Paul R Torgerson, Michael T Rogan, Philip S Craig.
Abstract
Echinococcosis is a re-emerging zoonotic disease in Kyrgyzstan, and the incidence of human infection has increased substantially since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Domestic dogs are hosts of Echinococcus spp. and play an important role in the transmission of these parasites. The demography, ecology and behaviour of dogs are therefore relevant in studying Echinococcus spp. transmission. Dog demographics, roles of dogs, dog movements and faecal environmental contamination were assessed in four rural communities in the Alay Valley, southern Kyrgyzstan. Arecoline purge data revealed for the first time that E. granulosus, E. canadensis and E. multilocularis were present in domestic dogs in the Alay Valley. Surveys revealed that many households had dogs and that dogs played various roles in the communities, as pets, guard dogs or sheep dogs. Almost all dogs were free to roam, and GPS data revealed that many moved outside their communities, thus being able to scavenge offal and consume rodents. Faecal environmental contamination was high, presenting a significant infection risk to the local communities.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23985326 PMCID: PMC3806042 DOI: 10.1017/S0031182013001182
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasitology ISSN: 0031-1820 Impact factor: 3.234
Characteristics of the populations under investigation
| Village | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sary Mogol | Taldy Suu | Kashka Suu | Kara Kavak | |
| Number of households registered | 368 | 125 | 86 | 65 |
| Total number of people | 2173 | 588 | 518 | 398 |
| Total number of dogs reported | 178 | 119 | 50 | 46 |
| Percentage of households with at least one dog | 38% | 74% | 51% | 52% |
| Total number of dogs registered | 155 | 115 | 49 | 38 |
Fig. 1.Population pyramid for all dogs sampled in May 2012 (n = 383). Numbers represent total proportion of dogs in each age and sex group.
Fig. 2.Euler diagram of the reported uses of dogs registered in the study. Numbers represent total number of dogs in each category.
Fig. 3.Frequency of dog restraint in the study villages.
Fig. 4.Proportion of dogs fed different food types and reported frequencies of feeding.
Fig. 5.Canid faecal densities amongst the different villages visited in May and October 2012 (KK = Kara Kavak, KS = Kashka Suu, SM = Sary Mogol, TS = Taldy Suu).
Dog movements and home range sizes for the dogs monitored in this study. (Figures in brackets relate to the bootstrapped confidence interval for the median.)
| Village | Village area (km2) | Number of points | Number of dogs monitored | Median home range (m2) | Median of median distance travelled per dog (m) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM | 3·32 | 1494 | 11 | 22 650 | 39 (31–84) |
| TS | 1·63 | 2459 | 13 | 15 700 | 20 (20–29) |
| KS | 1·16 | 1637 | 10 | 37 490 | 46 (28–308) |
| KK | 0·81 | 666 | 3 | 29 730 | 62 (58–629) |