| Literature DB >> 35061672 |
Hebe Del Valle Ferreyra1, Jaime Rudd2, Janet Foley2, Ralph E T Vanstreels3, Ana M Martín4, Emiliano Donadio5, Marcela M Uhart3.
Abstract
Sarcoptic mange epidemics can devastate wildlife populations. In 2014, mange was first detected in vicuñas (Vicugna vicugna) and guanacos (Lama guanicoe) in San Guillermo National Park (SGNP), Argentina. This study describes the temporal dynamics of the outbreak, its effects on the park's wild camelid populations between 2017-2019, and investigates the potential source of the epidemic. From May 2017 to June 2018, transect surveys indicated a sharp decrease in the density of living vicuñas and guanacos by 68% and 77%, respectively. By April 2019 no vicuñas or guanacos were recorded on transect surveys, suggesting their near-extinction in the park. Clinical signs consistent with mange (e.g., intense scratching, hyperkeratosis, alopecia) were observed in 24% of living vicuñas (n = 478) and 33% of living guanacos (n = 12) during surveys, as well as in 94% of vicuña carcasses (n = 124) and 85% of guanaco carcasses (n = 20) examined. Sarcoptes scabiei was identified as the causal agent by skin scrapings, and the cutaneous lesions were characterized by histopathology (n = 15). Genetic characterization revealed that mites recovered from seven vicuñas (n = 13) and three guanacos (n = 11) shared the same genotype, which is consistent with a single source and recent origin of the epidemic. Tracing the potential source, we identified a governmental livestock incentive program which introduced llamas (Lama glama) in areas adjacent to SGNP in 2009, some of which had alopecic scaling consistent with sarcoptic mange. Though at the time of our study no llamas with mange were available for confirmatory sampling, we hypothesize that the introduction of mange-infected llamas may have triggered the outbreak in wild camelids. This unprecedented event in SGNP had devastating effects on dominating herbivores with potentially profound cascading effects at the community and ecosystem levels.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35061672 PMCID: PMC8782313 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0256616
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Location of San Guillermo National Park and study transects in relation to the natural distribution of vicuñas and guanacos and nearby farms and grazing areas of livestock and recently introduced llamas.
Fig 2Clinical stages of mange in living vicuñas: (A) early stage, (B) advanced stage and (C) severe stage.
Density (individuals/km2) of vicuñas and guanacos at San Guillermo National Park, May 2017 –June 2018.
| Species | Period | Density | Standard error | Coefficient of variation (%) | 95% Confidence interval | Survey effort (km) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vicuña | May 2017 | 8.89 | 4.89 | 54.52 | 1.28–61.45 | 28 |
| Sep-Dec 2017 | 4.28 | 2.27 | 53 | 0.92–19.89 | 178.5 | |
| April-June 2018 | 2.87 | 0.84 | 29.38 | 1.44–5.75 | 168.8 | |
| Guanaco | May 2017 | 0.26 | 1.00 | 97.48 | 0.02–3.48 | 28 |
| Sep-Dec 2017 | 0.23 | 0.14 | 63 | 0.06–13.96 | 178.5 | |
| April-June 2018 | 0.06 | 0.02 | 38.15 | 0.02–0.42 | 168.8 |
Fig 3Time series of the number of living camelids observed in transect surveys and opportunistically collected carcasses with and without mange at San Guillermo National Park, February 2017 –April 2019.
Asterisks indicate months when carcasses were not evaluated. Arrows represent field surveys where no individuals were recorded. Light shaded areas between bars are used to highlight the relative changes between field surveys (no data was collected in these intervals).
Fig 4Mosaic plots of the proportion of individuals affected with mange according to the species, location, and survey month.
Number and proportion of mange in examined vicuña and guanaco carcasses at San Guillermo National Park, May 2017 –June 2018.
| Category | Vicuña | Guanaco | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Individuals examined | Individuals with mange | Proportion (95% CI) | Individuals examined | Individuals with mange | Proportion (95% CI) | |
|
| ||||||
| Cria | 23 | 19 | 82.6% (61.2–95.1) | 1 | 1 | 100% (2.5–100) |
| Juvenile | 22 | 20 | 90.9% (70.8–98.9) | 2 | 2 | 100% (15.8–100) |
| Adult | 75 | 73 | 97.3% (90.7–99.7) | 15 | 13 | 86.7% (59.5–98.3) |
| Not determined | 4 | 4 | 100% (39.8–100) | 2 | 1 | 50% (1.3–98.7) |
|
| ||||||
| May 2017 | 3 | 3 | 100% (29.2–100) | 0 | ||
| September 2017 | 33 | 33 | 100% (89.4–100) | 7 | 7 | 100% (59–100) |
| December 2017 | 63 | 58 | 92.1% (82.4–97.4) | 10 | 8 | 80% (44.4–97.5) |
| April 2018 | 23 | 21 | 91.3% (72–98.9) | 3 | 2 | 66.7% (9.4–99.2) |
| June 2018 | 2 | 1 | 50% (1.3–98.7) | 0 | ||
|
| 124 | 116 | 93.5% (87.7–97.2) | 20 | 17 | 85% (62.1–96.8) |
Fig 5(A) vicuña carcass with scabs and deep cracks in the axillary area; (B) vicuña carcass with scabs and deep cracks on hind limb; (C) guanaco carcass with scabs and deep cracks along the hind limb and groin.
Frequency of alleles by population.
| Locus | Allele | Vicuña Mites | Guanaco Mites |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.083† | 0.000 | |
|
| 0.875 | 1.000 | |
|
| 0.042† | 0.000 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1.000 | 1.000 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1.000 | 0.818 | |
|
| 0.000 | 0.182† | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1.000 | 1.000 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1.000 | 1.000 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1.000 | 0.909 | |
|
| 0.000 | 0.091† | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.154† | 0.000 | |
|
| 0.846 | 1.000 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1.000 | 1.000 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1.000 | 1.000 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.923 | 1.000 | |
|
| 0.077† | 0.000 |
Distributions of allele frequencies in 10 microsatellite loci among Sarcoptes scabiei mite populations by host, vicuña and guanaco (allele sizes are in base pairs). N is the number of mites collected and genotyped from seven vicuñas and three guanacos at each allele. Private alleles are denoted with “†”.
Characteristics of genetic variability of Sarcoptes scabiei obtained from vicuña and guanaco carcasses in San Guillermo National Park.
| Mite host | No. of mites | R | No. of polymorphic loci | Ho | He |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vicuña ( | 13 | 1.35 | 3 | 0.024 | 0.063 |
| Guanaco ( | 11 | 1.19 | 2 | 0.055 | 0.046 |
Abbreviations: n, number of individuals sampled; R, allelic richness; Ho, observed heterozygosity; He, expected heterozygosity.