| Literature DB >> 34877618 |
Paula Zajkowska1, Joanna Mąkol2.
Abstract
The study aims to ascertain the diversity of trombiculid species associated with Chiroptera in Poland, and for the first time in the case of research on Central European Trombiculidae, we use both DNA and morphology in an integrative taxonomic approach to determine species identities of trombiculids. The research was carried out from 2015 to 2019. In total, 2725 larvae were collected from 300 specimens of bats belonging to 11 species. Deutonymphs were obtained through laboratory rearing of larvae; few larvae and deutonymphs were collected also from bats' daily roosts. The presence of trombiculid larvae on hosts was observed between July and April of the following year, with the highest numbers recorded in autumn, during bat swarming. Male bats were infested more often than females (16.4 vs. 6.6%). The highest infestation rate was recorded for Barbastella barbastellus, Myotis nattereri and Plecotus auritus, and the highest prevalence of chiggers (> 30%) for Myotis bechsteinii and P. auritus. The larvae found on bats occupied the areas with free access to the host's skin: auricles, tragus, and snout. Morphological identification of specimens to the species level was hindered by the mosaic distribution of diagnostic traits. Morphological analyses indicated the presence of Leptotrombidium russicum and Leptotrombidium spp. in the examined material, whereas molecular analyses additionally suggested three other potential species assigned to the same genus based on the assessed scope of intrageneric variation (ASAP method). We argue that the identification of the parasitic larvae (chiggers) using morphological characters does not address the question of actual species boundaries, which, in turn, affects the inferences about host specificity and host range.Entities:
Keywords: Attachment sites, Chiggers; COI; Host range; Leptotrombidium spp.; Morphology; Phenology
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34877618 PMCID: PMC8702504 DOI: 10.1007/s10493-021-00683-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Exp Appl Acarol ISSN: 0168-8162 Impact factor: 2.132
Taxa and corresponding COI sequences applied in the phylogenetic analyses and in the ASAP method
| Species [distributiona] | Accession number [GenBank] | Country (collection site) | References | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | KR071845 | Poland | Moniuszko et al. ( | |
| 2 | MH622154 | Poland | Moniuszko et al. ( | |
| 3 | MH607466 | Poland | Moniuszko et al. ( | |
| KR337639 | Spain | Santibáñez-Sáenz ( | ||
| 4 | KY888693 | Poland | Moniuszko et al. ( | |
| 5 | OL619429, OL619430, OL619431 | Poland | This study | |
| 6 | OL619433, OL619434, OL619435 | Poland | This study | |
| 7 | OL619436 | Poland | This study | |
| 8 | OL619432 | Poland | This study | |
| 9 | NC007601 | Japan | GenBankb | |
| 10 | AB300489 | No data | GenBankb | |
| 11 | HQ324935, HQ324944, HQ324949, HQ324965, HQ324968, HQ324969, HQ324971, HQ324972 | Thailand | GenBankb | |
| 12 | HQ324977 | No data | GenBankb | |
| KY930745, KY930749, KY930750, KY930751 | Laos | Kumlert et al. ( | ||
| MH446370 | Thailand | GenBankb | ||
| 13 | AB300498 | No data | GenBankb | |
| 14 | AB300499 | No data | GenBankb | |
| 15 | AB180098 | Japan | Shao et al. ( | |
| 16 | AB300492 | No data | GenBankb | |
| 17 | AB300494 | No data | GenBankb | |
| 18 | AB300496 | No data | GenBankb | |
| 19 | KM100983 | No data | Dabert et al. ( | |
| 20 | KM100984 | No data | Dabert et al. ( |
adistribution by zoogeographic region after Nielsen et al. (2021): AUS Australian Region, PAC Pacific Region, PAL Palearctic Region, ORI Oriental Region
bsequences retrieved from GenBank; authors and year of submission available in GenBank
Fig. 1Collecting sites of bat-infesting chiggers in Poland (36 localities recorded during present survey, in 2015–2019). Green dots: Trombiculidae; green dots with a yellow margin: L. russicum. (Color figure online)
Recorded host species and values of parasitological indices referring to trombiculid mites collected during the survey in Poland (2015–2019)
| Host species | No. bats examined | No. infested specimens/prevalence | Total no. larvae collected from hosts | Mean (± SD) intensity | Mean abundance | Range of infestation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ♀ 53 | 14 (26.4) | 130 | 9.3 ± 8.2 | 2.5 | 1–42 | |
| ♂ 267 | 43 (16.1) | 610 | 14.2 ± 10.2 | 2.3 | 1–115 | ||
| Σ 320 | 57 (17.8) | 740 | 13 ± 9.9 | 2.3 | 1–115 | ||
| 2 | ♀ 28 | 1 (3.8) | 128 | 128 ± 23.8 | 4.6 | 128 | |
| ♂ 9 | 1 (11.1) | 3 | 3 ± 0.5 | 0.3 | 3 | ||
| Σ 37 | 2 (5.4) | 131 | 65.5 ± 20.8 | 3.5 | 3–131 | ||
| 3 | ♀ 1 | 0 | – | – | – | – | |
| ♂ 8 | 1 (12.5) | 1 | 1 ± 0.4 | 0.1 | 1 | ||
| Σ 9 | 1 (11.1) | 1 | 1 ± 0.3 | 0.1 | 1 | ||
| 4 | ♀ 16 | 3 (18.8) | 8 | 2.7 ± 6.5 | 0.5 | 1–4 | |
| ♂ 58 | 23 (39.7) | 133 | 5.8 ± 5.1 | 2.3 | 1–30 | ||
| Σ 74 | 26 (35.1) | 141 | 5.4 ± 5.0 | 1.9 | 1–30 | ||
| 5 | ♀ 29 | 2 (6.9) | 2 | 1 ± 0.3 | 0.1 | 1 | |
| ♂ 85 | 3 (3.5) | 92 | 30.7 ± 8.3 | 1.1 | 7–76 | ||
| Σ 114 | 5 (4.4) | 94 | 18.8 ± 7.2 | 0.8 | 1–76 | ||
| 6 | ♀ 51 | 7 (13.7) | 15 | 2.3 ± 3.2 | 0.3 | 1–5 | |
| ♂ 216 | 25 (11.6) | 89 | 3.6 ± 1.8 | 0.4 | 1–25 | ||
| Σ 267 | 32 (12) | 104 | 3.3 ± 1.8 | 0.4 | 1–25 | ||
| 7 | ♀ 80 | 5 (6.3) | 8 | 1.6 ± 0.5 | 0.1 | 1–4 | |
| ♂ 171 | 11 (6.4) | 81 | 7.4 ± 3.1 | 0.5 | 1–31 | ||
| Σ 251 | 16 (6.4) | 89 | 5.6 ± 2.6 | 0.4 | 1–31 | ||
| 8 | ♀ 214 | 11 (5.1) | 61 | 5.5 ± 1.63 | 0.3 | 1–16 | |
| ♂ 473 | 89 (18.8) | 653 | 7.3 ± 5.0 | 1.4 | 1–61 | ||
| Σ 687 | 100 (14.6) | 714 | 7.1 ± 4.3 | 1 | 1–61 | ||
| 9 | ♀ 34 | 8 (23.5) | 62 | 8 ± 7.6 | 1.8 | 1–43 | |
| ♂ 140 | 47 (33.6) | 565 | 12 ± 13.0 | 4 | 1–100 | ||
| Σ 174 | 55 (31.6) | 627 | 11.4 ± 12.1 | 3.6 | 1–100 | ||
| 10 | ♀ 0 | – | – | – | – | – | |
| ♂ 1 | 1 (100) | 70 | 70 | 70 | 70 | ||
| 11 | ♀ 345 | 5 (8.3) | 14 | 2.8 ± 0.5 | 0 | 2–7 | |
| ♂ 60 | 0 | – | – | – | – | ||
| Σ 405 | 5 (1.2) | 14 | 2.8 ± 0.5 | 0.03 | 2–14 | ||
| Total | 2339 | 300 | 2725 |
Fig. 2Trends in seasonal occurrence of chigger-infested bats in Poland. Data cumulated for the years 2015–2019, excluding the period of bat hibernation, between December and February
Fig. 4Phylogenetic tree (Bayesian inference, BI) based on COI dataset. Diamond symbols refer to Bayesian posterior probability (PP) of > 90%. Bat pictograms reflect cases in which larvae were collected from hosts, tree pictograms cases in which deutonymphs were collected from daily roost. Hash symbols (#) with numbers denote groups obtained using the ASAP method
Fig. 3Distribution of K2P pairwise distances revealed by ASAP. Red line denotes threshold value of intraspecific divergence. (Color figure online)