4.0 Article

A Survey of Gastrointestinal Parasites of Olive Baboons (Papio anubis) in Human Settlement Areas of Mole National Park, Ghana

期刊

JOURNAL OF PARASITOLOGY
卷 98, 期 4, 页码 885-888

出版社

ALLEN PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1645/GE-2976.1

关键词

-

资金

  1. NSF [0630709, EF- 0553768]
  2. University of California, Santa Barbara
  3. State of California
  4. NSERC
  5. Direct For Biological Sciences
  6. Div Of Biological Infrastructure [0630709] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  7. Directorate For Geosciences [1115057] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fecal samples from 55 free-ranging olive baboons (Papio anubis) in Mole National Park, Ghana, were collected 22 June-7 July 2008 and analyzed for gastrointestinal parasites. This is the first survey of baboon gastrointestinal parasites in Ghana and provides baseline data for this area. Ninety-three percent of samples were infected, leaving 7% with no parasites observed. Of those infected, there was a 76% prevalence of strongyles, 53% Strongyloides spp., 11% Abbreviata caucasica, 62% prevalence of Balanitidium coli (trophozoites and cysts identified), 4% Entomeba hystolyticahhspar, and 47% unidentified protozoan parasites. Of the strongyle infections, 9% were identified as Oesophagosimnum sp. One sample contained an unidentified spirurid nematode that resembled Gongylonema sp. Mole has a mixed forest-savanna habitat, and baboons frequently range into human areas, which makes them subject to parasites from each habitat and multiple sources of exposure. We found a high prevalence of nematode parasites, consistent with a wet or cooler forest environment, or high rates of fecal contamination. The presence of Strongyloides sp., E. hystoliticaldispar, and B. coil suggest potential public health risk from baboons, but molecular identification of these parasites, and documentation of their presence in local human populations, would be necessary to confirm zoonotic transmission.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据