| Literature DB >> 25830115 |
Heike Lutermann1, Dina M Fagir1, Nigel C Bennett1.
Abstract
Concomitant infection with more than one parasite species is the rule in nature. Since co-infecting parasites are exploiting the same host, interspecific interactions at the infracommunity level are likely. The nature of such interactions can be expected to affect the distribution of parasites within host populations. Intraspecific interactions within the infracommunity are not easily discernible from cross-sectional studies and the focus of most of these studies lies on relationships between endoparasitic micro- and macroparasites. In the current study of the ectoparasite community of wild eastern rock sengis (Elephantulus myurus) we experimentally reduced tick and flea infestations and monitored ectoparasite burdens over the course of three years. We found a number of within-taxon facilitating interactions between tick species that might be the result of decreasing immune responses with increasing tick burden. In contrast, inter-taxon relationships appeared to be dominated by antagonistic relationships likely to be linked to competition over feeding sites. Only one of the observed interspecific interactions was reciprocal. Our experimental manipulation revealed additional antagonistic relationships that cross-sectional studies would not have captured. In addition, we found substantial long-term changes in the sengi ectoparasite community as a result of our experimental manipulation suggesting carry-over effects of our treatment. This study is the first that evaluates interspecific interactions within the entire ectoparasite community exploiting a mammalian host in Africa and highlights the complexity of interspecific interactions within an ectoparasite community.Entities:
Keywords: Co-infection; Community ecology; Interspecific interaction; Rhipicephalus; Trombiculidae
Year: 2015 PMID: 25830115 PMCID: PMC4356872 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijppaw.2015.02.001
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Parasitol Parasites Wildl ISSN: 2213-2244 Impact factor: 2.674
Ectoparasite species collected and their infestation parameters on Elephantulus myurus in the Ezemvelo/Telperion Nature Reserve. Highlighted in bold are totals for the five main parasite taxa.
| Taxon | Species | Total | Prevalence (%) | Abundance (±SE) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ticks | 665 | 0.8 | 2.49 ± 2.483 (0–653) | |
| 51,122 | 80.9 | 194.94 ± 13.327 (0–998) | ||
| 140 | 20.2 | 0.53 ± 0.145 (0–30) | ||
| 1 | 0.6 | 0.01 ± 0.074 (0–1) | ||
| 10 | 4.4 | 0.05 ± 0.273 (0–2) | ||
| 1 | 0.5 | 0.01 ± 0.074 (0–1) | ||
| 2 | 0.5 | 0.01 ± 0.148 (0–2) | ||
| 144 | 17.2 | 0.55 ± 0.110 (0–14) | ||
| 28 | 6.1 | 0.11 ± 0.033 (0–6) | ||
| 910 | 34.0 | 3.46 ± 0.780 (0–99) | ||
| Mites | Trombiculidae larvae (chiggers) | |||
| Lice | ||||
| Fleas | 47 | 4.4 | 0.26 ± 1.364 (0–10) | |
| 6 | 3.3 | 0.3 ± 0.179 (0–1) | ||
| 1 | 0.5 | 0.1 ± 0.074 (0–1) | ||
| 5 | 1.0 | 0.03 ± 0.305 (1–4) | ||
| 7 | 2.7 | 0.04 ± 0.243 (0–2) | ||
Indicates the most prevalent and abundant species.
Final GLMMs for the abundance of the five most common ectoparasite species of E. myurus in Ezemvelo/Telperion (first captures only).
| Variable | Chigger | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F | p | F | p | F | p | F | p | F | p | |
| Year | 7.537 | 3.219 | 0.164 | 0.849 | 3.199 | 43.048 | ||||
| Season | 27.394 | 1.390 | 0.248 | 1.809 | 0.148 | 10.530 | 63.983 | |||
| Treatment | 0.133 | 0.716 | 0.000 | 0.988 | 1.102 | 0.295 | 0.728 | 0.395 | 0.449 | 0.504 |
| Sex | – | – | 0.0001 | 0.974 | 6.481 | 0.286 | 0.594 | 4.144 | ||
| Year × season | – | – | – | – | 2.292 | 2.454 | 8.008 | |||
| Year × treatment | – | – | 4.774 | 3.158 | 0.665 | 0.516 | – | – | ||
| Year × sex | – | – | 2.141 | 0.121 | 1.371 | 0.257 | 0.364 | 0.696 | 1.189 | 0.307 |
| Season × treatment | 3.200 | 2.980 | 0.036 | 0.991 | 1.378 | 0.252 | 1.808 | 0.148 | ||
| Season × sex | – | – | 1.019 | 0.386 | 0.782 | 0.506 | 0.119 | 0.949 | 0.727 | 0.538 |
| Treatment × sex | – | – | – | – | 0.086 | 0.770 | 3.029 | 0.084 | – | – |
| – | – | – | – | – | – | 0.120 | 0.729 | – | – | |
| Other | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1.656 | 0.200 |
| – | – | 1.401 | 0.238 | – | – | 0.860 | 0.355 | 0.672 | 0.414 | |
| – | – | 4.451 | – | – | 2.194 | 0.141 | 4.246 | |||
| 2.816 | 0.095 | 6.030 | – | – | – | – | – | – | ||
| Fleas | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 0.002 | 0.965 |
| Chigger | – | – | 2.649 | 0.106 | 6.621 | 0.001 | 0.981 | – | – | |
| – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
–: factor dropped from the final model.
P-values highlighted in bold indicate significant effects.
Final GLMMs for the abundance of the five most common ectoparasite species of E. myurus in Ezemvelo/Telperion (including recaptures).
| Variable | Chigger | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F | p | F | p | F | p | F | p | F | p | |
| Year | 23.359 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.040 | 0.961 | 1.305 | 0.273 | 54.524 | ||
| Season | 35.970 | 0.117 | 0.950 | 2.469 | 0.063 | 14.077 | 64.812 | |||
| Treatment | 1.578 | 0.210 | 0.000 | 0.994 | 2.707 | 0.101 | 0.619 | 0.432 | 0.242 | 0.623 |
| Sex | 14.326 | 0.264 | 0.608 | 7.828 | 1.078 | 0.300 | 6.928 | |||
| capture | 465.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 3.852 | 18.433 | 141.534 | ||||
| Year × capture | 29.408 | 8.929 | 0.374 | 0.688 | 0.335 | 0.716 | 18.001 | |||
| Season × capture | 25.462 | 4.988 | 0.214 | 0.886 | – | – | 3.930 | |||
| Treatment × capture | 2.999 | 0.085 | 9.146 | 0.014 | 0.906 | – | – | 0.471 | 0.493 | |
| Sex × capture | 15.083 | – | – | 0.002 | 0.964 | 1.238 | 0.267 | – | – | |
| Year × season | 1.897 | 0.082 | 2.468 | 3.850 | 1.935 | 0.076 | 9.070 | |||
| Year × treatment | 1.032 | 0.358 | – | – | 4.874 | – | – | 3.767 | ||
| Year × sex | – | – | 1.499 | 0.226 | 1.681 | 0.188 | 0.892 | 0.411 | 2.358 | 0.097 |
| Season × treatment | – | – | 3.900 | 0.077 | 0.973 | – | – | 0.736 | 0.532 | |
| Season × sex | 1.600 | 0.190 | 1.473 | 0.223 | 1.090 | 0.354 | – | – | – | – |
| Treatment × sex | – | – | – | – | 0.021 | 0.885 | 2.705 | 0.101 | 3.384 | 0.067 |
| – | – | 7.961 | – | – | 0.405 | 0.525 | – | – | ||
| – | – | – | – | – | – | 0.086 | 0.770 | 4.079 | ||
| 0.316 | 0.575 | 2.923 | 0.089 | – | – | 1.237 | 0.267 | – | – | |
| 0.253 | 0.615 | 5.092 | – | – | 5.267 | 5.520 | ||||
| – | – | 6.114 | – | – | – | – | 1.444 | 0.231 | ||
| Fleas | 4.104 | 2.019 | 0.157 | – | – | 0.000 | 0.992 | 0.030 | 0.862 | |
| chigger | – | – | – | – | 8.000 | 0.580 | 0.447 | – | – | |
| – | – | – | – | 1.213 | 0.272 | 0.331 | 0.566 | 0.412 | 0.522 | |
–: factor dropped from the final model.
P-values highlighted in bold indicate significant effects.
Fig. 1Seasonal variation in the (a) prevalence of Rhipicephalus spp. as well as the abundance of (b) R. warburtoni/arnoldi, (c) chiggers and (d) other Rhipicephalus spp. on sengis in Telperion/Ezemvelo Nature Reserve between study years. Displayed are means ± SE. Open bars indicate the first, grey bars the second and black bars the third study year.
Fig. 2Effects of antiparasite treatment in the three study years on the abundance of (a) Rhipicephalus spp., (b) Rc. nuttalli and (c) chiggers. Displayed are means ± SE. Open bars indicate untreated and filled bars treated animals.
Fig. 3Relationships between the abundance of (a) Rc. nuttalli and (b) Ixodes spp. and the abundance of Rhipicephalus spp. and the (c) abundance of Rc. nuttalli and the chigger abundance when only first captures are considered.