| Literature DB >> 28763517 |
Stefania Zanet1, Giacomo Miglio1, Caterina Ferrari2, Bruno Bassano2, Ezio Ferroglio1, Achaz von Hardenberg2,3.
Abstract
Alpine marmots Marmota marmota occupy a narrow altitudinal niche within high elevation alpine environments. For animals living at such high elevations where resources are limited, parasitism represents a potential major cost in life history. Using occupancy models, we tested if marmots living at higher elevation have a reduced risk of being infected with gastro-intestinal helminths, possibly compensating the lower availability of resources (shorter feeding season, longer snow cover and lower temperature) than marmots inhabiting lower elevations. Detection probability of eggs and oncospheres of two gastro-intestinal helminthic parasites, Ascaris laevis and Ctenotaenia marmotae, sampled in marmot feces, was used as a proxy of parasite abundance. As predicted, the models showed a negative relationship between elevation and parasite detectability (i.e. abundance) for both species, while there appeared to be a negative effect of solar radiance only for C. marmotae. Site-occupancy models are used here for the first time to model the constrains of gastrointestinal parasitism on a wild species and the relationship existing between endoparasites and environmental factors in a population of free-living animals. The results of this study suggest the future use of site-occupancy models as a viable tool to account for parasite imperfect detection in eco-parasitological studies, and give useful insights to further investigate the hypothesis of the contribution of parasite infection in constraining the altitudinal niche of Alpine marmots.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28763517 PMCID: PMC5538747 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0182477
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Number of samples and site-specific covariates at each sampling site.
| Site | Number of samples | Elevation | Mean annual Solar radiance (kW/h) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 1748 | 1843 |
| 2 | 20 | 1760 | 1786 |
| 3 | 37 | 1675 | 1548 |
| 4 | 25 | 1683 | 1530 |
| 5 | 44 | 1682 | 1714 |
| 6 | 17 | 1981 | 1921 |
| 7 | 7 | 2004 | 1778 |
| 8 | 23 | 2027 | 1892 |
| 9 | 32 | 2169 | 1671 |
| 10 | 46 | 2180 | 1704 |
| 11 | 21 | 2210 | 1312 |
| 12 | 19 | 2235 | 1593 |
| 13 | 42 | 2301 | 1809 |
| 14 | 37 | 2342 | 1890 |
| 15 | 30 | 2345 | 1832 |
| 16 | 34 | 2551 | 2003 |
| 17 | 33 | 2541 | 2187 |
| 18 | 38 | 2583 | 1863 |
| 19 | 42 | 2831 | 1588 |
| 20 | 13 | 2670 | 1935 |
| 21 | 15 | 2737 | 1711 |
| 22 | 10 | 2640 | 1291 |
Elevation (meters a.s.l.) and mean annual solar radiance (kW/h) were considered in the occupancy model as site specific covariates. Both parameters were calculated for each of the 22 marmot families included in the study. The value of each covariate is reported in the table together with the number of samples collected/analyzed from each sampling site.
Copromicroscopic analysis for A. laevis and C. marmotae.
| April | May | June | July | August | September | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| absent | 11 | 100 | 49 | 48 | 50 | 55 | 313 |
| present | 0 | 5 | 60 | 78 | 65 | 66 | 274 |
| 11 | 105 | 109 | 126 | 115 | 121 | 587 | |
| 0.00–0.269 | 0.021–0.107 | 0.457–0.641 | 0.532–0.699 | 0.474–0.652 | 0.457–0.632 | 0.427–0.507 | |
| absent | 11 | 105 | 98 | 90 | 37 | 25 | 366 |
| present | 0 | 0 | 11 | 36 | 78 | 96 | 221 |
| 11 | 105 | 109 | 126 | 115 | 121 | 587 | |
| 0.00–0.259 | 0.00–0.035 | 0.057–0.172 | 0.214–0.37 | 0.588–0.757 | 0.713–0.856 | 0.338–0.416 |
The number of samples respectively positive and negative for C. marmotae and A. laevis are reported for each month of sampling (columns “April” to “September”) and for the entire study period (column “Total”) together with monthly and total coprological prevalence values and confidence intervals (CI95%).
AIC-based model selection.
| AIC | AICwt | cumltvWt | AIC | AICwt | cumultvWt | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ψ(.)p(Elev+Date+Rad) | 739.17 | 8.5e-01 | 0.85 | ψ(.)p(Elev+Date) | 471.35 | 9.1e-01 | 0.91 |
| ψ(.)p(Elev+Date) | 742.56 | 1.5e-01 | 1.00 | ψ(.)p(Elev+Date+Rad) | 476.08 | 8.6e-02 | 1.00 |
| ψ(.)p(Date+Rad) | 757.89 | 7.3e-05 | 1.00 | ψ(.)p(Date) | 485.61 | 7.3e-04 | 1.00 |
| ψ(.)p(Date) | 761.10 | 1.5e-05 | 1.00 | ψ(.)p(Date+Rad) | 485.66 | 7.1e-04 | 1.00 |
| ψ(.)p(Rad) | 797.37 | 1.9e-13 | 1.00 | ψ(.)p(.) | 727.38 | 2.3e-56 | 1.00 |
| ψ(.)p(.) | 815.16 | 2.7e-17 | 1.00 | ψ(.)p(Rad) | 737.04 | 1.8e-58 | 1.00 |
| ψ(.)p(Elev) | 821.02 | 1.4e-18 | 1.00 | ψ(.)p(Alt) | 737.97 | 1.2e-58 | 1.00 |
| ψ(.)p(Elev+Rad) | 847.61 | 2.4e-24 | 1.00 | ψ(.)p(Elev+Rad) | 739.51 | 5.4e-59 | 1.00 |
For each model (null model or models with covariates Elevation (Elev), Solar Radiance (Rad), Julian Date (Date)) the AIC value, AIC weight (AICwt), and cumulative AIC weight (cumltvWt) are reported.
Details of estimates of detection probability of C. marmotae and A. laevis.
| (Intercept) | 1.251 | 0.458 | 2.733 | 0.006 |
| Elev | -0.001 | 0.000280 | -3.852 | 0.0001 |
| Date | 0.015 | 0.002 | 7.586 | < 0.0001 |
| Rad | -0.0004 | 0.0005 | -0.804 | 0.422 |
| (Intercept) | -2.465 | 0.771 | -3.20 | 0.001 |
| Elev | -0.002 | 0.0002 | -5.28 | < 0.0001 |
| Date | 0.046 | 0.004 | 13.12 | < 0.0001 |
Estimated slopes, standard error (SE), z and p-values for each variable (Elevation—Elev, Solar Radiance—Rad, Julian Date of sampling—Date) included in the best performing models for C. marmotae and A. laevis are reported in the table.
Fig 1Covariate trend in site occupancy models for C. marmotae.
Detection probability (solid line) and confidence intervals (dashed line) of C. marmotae are pictured as function of site specific covariates: (1a) elevation (1b) solar radiance and Julian date (1c). The represented values of p were obtained considering the median value of each covariate within the model [ψ(.)p(Elev+Rad+Date)].
Fig 2Covariate trend in site occupancy models for A. laevis.
Detection probability (solid line) and confidence intervals (dashed line) of A. laevis are pictured as function of (2a) Elevation and of Julian date (2b). The represented values of p were obtained considering the median value of each covariate within the model [ψ(.)p(Elev+Date)].