4.6 Article

Higher risk of gastrointestinal parasite infection at lower elevation suggests possible constraints in the distributional niche of Alpine marmots

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 12, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0182477

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ente Parco Nazionale Gran Paradiso, as part of the Marmot Project
  2. Surveillance service of the Gran Paradiso National Park
  3. Park wardens of Orvieilles

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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 gastrointestinal 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.

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

4.6
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