| Literature DB >> 25425397 |
Johannes Charlier1, Karen Soenen2, Els De Roeck3, Wouter Hantson4, Els Ducheyne5, Frieke Van Coillie6, Robert De Wulf7, Guy Hendrickx8, Jozef Vercruysse9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The trematode parasite Fasciola hepatica causes important economic losses in ruminants worldwide. Current spatial distribution models do not provide sufficient detail to support farm-specific control strategies. A technology to reliably assess the spatial distribution of intermediate host snail habitats on farms would be a major step forward to this respect. The aim of this study was to conduct a longitudinal field survey in Flanders (Belgium) to (i) characterise suitable small water bodies (SWB) for Galba truncatula and (ii) describe the population dynamics of G. truncatula.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25425397 PMCID: PMC4247775 DOI: 10.1186/s13071-014-0528-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 3.876
Figure 1Definition of five types of small water bodies (SWB) that were identified on the farms and investigated for the presence of
Figure 2Observed number of per small water body-type and region.
Figure 3Mean monthly precipitation and temperature (A) and overall abundance of juvenile and adult snails (B) in the region of Bruges and Zoersel during the study period.
Multivariate negative binomial regression model to evaluate the associations between snail abundance and predictor variables monitored throughout the study period
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | −0.532 | 0.577 | 0.37 |
| SWB-type | < 0.001 | ||
| Trench | 3.823 | 0.732 | < 0.001 |
| Pond | 1.292 | 0.548 | 0.019 |
| Moist area | 0.831 | 0.699 | 0.235 |
| Furrow | 0.879 | 0.509 | 0.084 |
| Ditch | - | - | |
| Region | < 0.001 | ||
| Zoersel | −2.754 | 0.552 | |
| Bruges | - | - | |
| Total monthly rainfall (mm) | 0.006 | 0.003 | 0.028 |
Results from univariate negative binomial regression models to evaluate the associations of abundance with management and (micro-)environmental variables
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Fencing | 0.320 | ||
| Yes | −0.592 | 0.460 | |
| Partial | −0.057 | 0.217 | |
| No | - | - | |
| Mowed | 0.010 | ||
| Yes | −0.621 | 0.240 | |
| No | - | - | |
| Water flow | 0.399 | ||
| Standing water | −0.299 | 0.354 | |
| Running water | - | - | |
| Trampled | 0.896 | ||
| Yes | −0.049 | 0.379 | |
| No | - | - | |
| Rushes/sedges | 0.572 | ||
| Yes | 0.186 | 0.330 | |
| No | - | - | |
| Reed | <0.001 | ||
| Yes | −0.855 | 0.253 | |
| No | - | - | |
| Ranunculus sp. | 0.016 | ||
| Yes | 0.616 | 0.255 | |
| No | - | - | |
| Water pH | 0.399 | 0.066 | <0.001 |
| Soil pH | 0.704 | 0.239 | 0.003 |
| Water temperature (°C) | −0.074 | 0.024 | 0.002 |
| Soil temperature (°C) | −0.005 | 0.036 | 0.902 |
Figure 4prevalence in the four investigated farms at three time points by means of two diagnostic methods.