| Literature DB >> 25159989 |
Götz Froeschke, Sonja Matthee1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anthropogenic habitat change often results in altered landscapes that can provide new environments where hosts, parasites and pathogens can interact. The latter can have implications for human and animal health when in close proximity to developed areas. We recorded the helminth species richness and level of infestation in the peri-domestic rodent, Rhabdomys pumilio, in three different human linked landscapes. The aim was, to investigate the potential of R. pumilio to act as a reservoir host for zoonotic helminths and to compare the effect of anthropogenic habitat change on its parasite infestation patterns.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25159989 PMCID: PMC4158073 DOI: 10.1186/1756-3305-7-393
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 3.876
Locality and trapping information
| Locality | Geographic location | Size [km2] | Sample size of | Number of small mammal species |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Natural | ||||
| Jonkershoek | 33° 55′ 51.00″ S, 18° 51′ 15.98″ E | 98.00 | 40 | 6 |
| Elandsberg Nat. | 33° 26′ 25.15″ S, 19° 03′ 02.30″ E | 40.00 | 32 | 2 |
| Hottentotsholland | 33° 59′ 16.98″ S, 19° 04′ 46.99″ E | 70.00 | 42 | 4 |
| Helderberg | 34° 03′ 24.41″ S, 18° 52′ 03.04″ E | 2.54 | 34 | 4 |
| Crop | ||||
| Zevenwacht | 33° 55′ 02.96″ S, 18° 43′ 56.06″ E | 1.10 | 43 | 6 |
| Elandsberg Agr. | 33° 26′ 25.15″ S, 19° 03′ 02.30″ E | 0.63 | 26 | 3 |
| De Rust | 34° 10′ 27.98″ S, 19° 04′ 46.99″ E | 0.90 | 50 | 3 |
| Cordoba | 34° 02′ 03.41″ S, 18° 43′ 56.06″ E | 0.31 | 53 | 4 |
| Livestock | ||||
| Elsenberg | 33° 50′ 04.45″ S, 18° 51′ 02.16″ E | 0.67 | 30 | 2 |
| Wellington | 33° 31′ 44.40″ S, 19° 02′ 27.49″ E | 0.46 | 26 | 3 |
| Gordons Bay | 34° 08′ 48.55″ S, 18° 53′ 16.29″ E | 0.13 | 30 | 1 |
| Franschoek L. | 33° 51′ 11.48″ S, 18° 58′ 20.60″ E | 0.38 | 20 | 1 |
| Urban | ||||
| Stellenbosch | 33° 55′ 57.39″ S, 18° 52′ 39.79″ E | 0.20 | 30 | 3 |
| Somerset West | 34° 03′ 37.36″ S, 18° 49′ 42.49″ E | 0.10 | 24 | 2 |
| Franschoek U. | 33° 54′ 34.77″ S, 19° 07′ 33.16″ E | 0.03 | 20 | 1 |
| Khayelitsha | 34° 02′ 49.52″ S, 18° 39′ 25.95″ E | 0.10 | 18 | 2 |
Localities per landscape type, their coordinates, sizes and the number of sampled animals per locality.
Figure 1Mean total body length [mm] (±95% CI) for individuals trapped in different landscape types.
Figure 2Relative host density (±95% CI) of in respective landscape types.
Figure 3Overall prevalence [%] of all helminths together and each helminth species respectively.
Figure 4Mean helminth species richness in per landscape type.
Effect of different landscape types and host traits on helminth burden
| Response variable | Predictor | Coefficient ± SE |
| p | Effect | %DE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Species richness | Crop | 1.72 ± 0.32 | <0.001 | + | 39.70 | |
| Livestock | -1.14 ± 0.27 | <0.001 | - | |||
| Urban | -1.55 ± 0.23 | <0.001 | - | |||
| Length | 0.18 ± 0.03 | <0.001 | + | |||
| Sex | -0.38 ± 0.10 | <0.001 | + ♂ | |||
| Density | -0.13 ± 0.03 | <0.001 | - | |||
| Year 2004 | 0.94 ± 0.16 | <0.001 | + | |||
| Year 2010 | 1.33 ± 0.20 | <0.001 | + | |||
| Crop: Density | -0.17 ± 0.06 | 0.003 | - | |||
| Urban: Density | 0.26 ± 0.05 | <0.001 | + | |||
| Helminth prevalence | Crop | 1.46 ± 0.56 | 0.009 | + | 33.05 | |
| Livestock | -2.45 ± 0.47 | <0.001 | - | |||
| Urban | -1.74 ± 0.50 | 0.001 | - | |||
| Length | 0.33 ± 0.09 | <0.001 | + | |||
| Density | -0.18 ± 0.07 | <0.001 | - | |||
| Year 2010 | 3.39 ± 0.53 | <0.001 | + | |||
| Helminth abundance | Crop | 1.02 ± 0.15 | <0.001 | + | 51.52 | |
| Livestock | -1.44 ± 0.20 | <0.001 | - | |||
| Urban | -1.70 ± 0.16 | <0.001 | - | |||
| Length | 0.06 ± 0.01 | <0.001 | + | |||
| Density | -0.06 ± 0.01 | <0.001 | - | |||
| Year 2004 | 0.39 ± 0.06 | <0.001 | + | |||
| Year 2010 | 1.55 ± 0.15 | <0.001 | + | |||
| Crop: Density | -0.12 ± 0.03 | <0.001 | - | |||
| Urban: Density | 0.14 ± 0.02 | <0.001 | + | |||
| Crop | 1.97 ± 0.55 | <0.001 | + | 47.87 | ||
| Livestock | -6.55 ± 1.06 | <0.001 | - | |||
| Urban | -2.38 ± 0.47 | <0.001 | - | |||
| Length | 0.20 ± 0.08 | 0.009 | + | |||
| Density | -0.28 ± 0.11 | 0.009 | - | |||
| Year 2004 | 1.56 ± 0.74 | 0.035 | + | |||
| Year 2010 | 5.51 ± 0.98 | <0.001 | + | |||
| Crop | 1.15 ± 0.16 | <0.001 | + | 53.81 | ||
| Livestock | -1.67 ± 0.23 | <0.001 | - | |||
| Urban | -1.91 ± 0.16 | <0.001 | - | |||
| Length | 0.08 ± 0.01 | <0.001 | + | |||
| Density | -0.07 ± 0.02 | <0.001 | - | |||
| Year 2004 | 0.46 ± 0.08 | <0.001 | + | |||
| Year 2010 | 2.18 ± 0.16 | <0.001 | + | |||
| Crop: Density | -0.14 ± 0.03 | <0.001 | - | |||
| Livestock: Density | -0.75 ± 0.14 | <0.001 | - | |||
| Urban: Density | 0.10 ± 0.03 | <0.001 | + | |||
| Crop | 3.94 ± 0.69 | <0.001 | + | 26.13 | ||
| Livestock | -1.74 ± 0.65 | 0.007 | - | |||
| Urban | -2.56 ± 0.57 | <0.001 | - | |||
| Sex | -0.85 ± 0.23 | <0.001 | + ♂ | |||
| Length | 0.25 ± 0.06 | <0.001 | + | |||
| Density | -0.33 ± 0.07 | <0.001 | - | |||
| Year 2004 | 1.79 ± 0.38 | <0.001 | + | |||
| Year 2010 | 2.88 ± 0.49 | <0.001 | + | |||
| Crop: Density | -0.40 ± 0.12 | <0.001 | - | |||
| Livestock: Density | 0.35 ± 0.14 | 0.015 | + | |||
| Urban: Density | 0.46 ± 0.11 | <0.001 | + | |||
| Crop | 1.73 ± 0.33 | <0.001 | + | 30.57 | ||
| Livestock | -1.20 ± 0.41 | 0.004 | - | |||
| Urban | -1.95 ± 0.36 | <0.001 | - | |||
| Sex | -0.26 ± 0.09 | 0.005 | + ♂ | |||
| Length | 0.12 ± 0.02 | <0.001 | + | |||
| Density | -0.13 ± 0.03 | <0.001 | - | |||
| Year 2004 | 0.62 ± 0.13 | <0.001 | + | |||
| Year 2010 | 1.90 ± 0.32 | <0.001 | + | |||
| Crop: Density | -0.17 ± 0.07 | 0.008 | - | |||
| Urban: Density | 0.20 ± 0.05 | <0.001 | + | |||
| Livestock | -0.85 ± 0.39 | 0.030 | - | 4.60 | ||
| Urban | -0.83 ± 0.40 | 0.040 | - | |||
| Sex | -0.44 ± 0.20 | 0.028 | + ♂ | |||
| Length | 0.16 ± 0.05 | 0.002 | + | |||
| Year 2010 | 0.78 ± 0.36 | 0.028 | + | |||
| Sex | -0.43 ± 0.17 | 0.012 | + ♂ | 1.79 | ||
| Livestock | -1.35 ± 0.37 | <0.001 | - | 12.85 | ||
| Urban | -1.70 ± 0.42 | <0.001 | - | |||
| Length | 0.27 ± 0.06 | <0.001 | + | |||
| Livestock | -1.57 ± 0.41 | <0.001 | - | 22.27 | ||
| Urban | -1.55 ± 0.41 | <0.001 | - | |||
| Length | 0.26 ± 0.04 | <0.001 | + | |||
| Livestock | 0.57 ± 0.34 | (0.098) | + | 6.87 | ||
| Urban | 0.57 ± 0.34 | (0.098) | + | |||
| Density | 0.13 ± 0.04 | <0.001 | + | |||
| Length | 0.25 ± 0.06 | <0.001 | + |
Generalized linear model results that showed a significant relationship between landscape type (crop, livestock, urban and natural habitat), host density, host length and host sex on species richness and helminth parasite prevalence and abundance in R. pumilio. Coefficients ± standard errors; t = t-value; z = z-value; p = significance value 0.05, values under 0.1 given in brackets; effect: + = increasing effect, - = decreasing effect, compared to natural habitat; %DE = percentage of explained deviance; ♂ = male individuals.
Helminth species and prevalence [%] recorded in per landscape type
| Family and species | Natural | Crop | Livestock | Urban |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Heligmonellidae | ||||
| | 86.8% | 94.2% | 34.6% | 68.1% |
| | 47.7% | 64.2% | 58.5% | 45.7% |
| Oxyuridae | ||||
| | 35.1% | 35.2% | 34.6% | 31.8% |
| Trichostrongylidae | ||||
| | 31.0% | 40.0% | 9.9% | 6.7% |
| Trichuridae | ||||
| | 1.4% | 0.6% | 0.0% | 1.1% |
| Hymenolepididae | ||||
| | 14.8% | 25.4% | 20.1% | 24.7% |
Figure 5Overall mean abundance (log[abundance]) of helminth species in per habitat type.