4.3 Article

Hemosporidian parasites of free-living birds in the So Paulo Zoo, Brazil

Journal

PARASITOLOGY RESEARCH
Volume 115, Issue 4, Pages 1443-1452

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00436-015-4878-0

Keywords

Plasmodium; Haemoproteus; Free-living birds; Atlantic Forest; Sao Paulo Zoo

Categories

Funding

  1. Sao Paulo Zoological Park Foundation (Fundacao Parque Zoologico de Sao Paulo)
  2. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) [2012/51427-1]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Numerous studies addressed the diversity of bird Plasmodium and Haemoproteus parasites. However, a few have been carried out in continental avian hotspot regions such as Brazil, a country with markedly different biomes, including Amazon, Brazilian Savanna, Atlantic Forest, Caatinga, Pantanal, and Pampas. We present the first study on hemosporidian (Haemosporida) parasites in free-living birds from an Atlantic Forest fragment where more than 80 avian species have been reported. Within this area, the So Paulo Zoo locates, and it is the fourth largest zoo in the world and the largest in Latin America. A total of 133 free-living bird samples representing 12 species were collected in the zoo, with the overall hemosporidian prevalence of 18 % by PCR-based diagnostics. Twenty-four positive PCR signals were reported from four different bird species, including migratory ones. Columba livia, an urban species, considered nowadays a pest in big cities, showed 100 % prevalence of Haemoproteus spp., mainly Haemoproteus columbae. We discuss the epidemiological importance of new parasites introduced by migratory birds in the So Paulo Zoo area and the risk it poses to the captive species, which are natives or exotics. We also warn about the influence these parasites can have on the biodiversity and the structure of host populations by altering the competitive interaction between the free-living and the captive birds.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available