4.4 Article

Interaction of ectoparasites (Mesostigmata, Phthiraptera and Siphonaptera) with small mammals in Cerrado fragments, western Brazil

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL AND APPLIED ACAROLOGY
卷 66, 期 3, 页码 369-381

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10493-015-9917-0

关键词

Host-ectoparasite specificity; Didelphimorphia; Rodentia; Cerrado fragments

资金

  1. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES)
  2. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq) [Processo 470324/2011-2]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We describe ectoparasite fauna associated with small mammals in fragments of Cerrado biome, central-western Brazil. We analyzed the level of associations and the aggregation patterns according to seasonal and host variations. Small mammals were systematically captured in 54 woodland fragments from February 2012 to July 2013. A total of 1040 animals belonging to eight marsupial and 12 rodent species were sampled; 354 individuals were parasitized by 33 ectoparasite species (twenty five Mesostigmata, seven Phthiraptera and one Siphonaptera). A total of 49 ecological relationships between ectoparasites and small mammals were observed, 24 being new association records. The overall specialization index of all ectoparasites and host species was 0.91 with significant deviation from a random host-parasite association, suggesting a high host-parasite specialization in this system. Specialization indices for ectoparasites ranged from moderate to high, while among host was high, for most species. Contrary to the overall pattern, some ectoparasites had higher prevalence and mean intensity of infestation in the dry season. Overall, ectoparasite prevalence and mean intensity of infestation were not significantly associated with host gender. This study provides significant information about the ectoparasites ecology in relation to specificity, seasonality and hosts gender, contributing to the understanding of host-parasite relationships in Brazilian savannah.

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

4.4
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