4.2 Article

The helminth parasites of two sympatric species of the genus Apodemus (Rodentia, Muridae) from south-eastern Slovakia

期刊

ACTA PARASITOLOGICA
卷 55, 期 4, 页码 369-378

出版社

SPRINGER INT PUBL AG
DOI: 10.2478/s11686-010-0043-1

关键词

Helminth community; Apodemus agrarius; Apodemus flavicollis; Rodentia; Muridae; south-eastern Slovakia

资金

  1. Slovak Grant Agency [2/0043/09, 2/0042/10]
  2. Generalitat de Catalunya [2008BP A 00045]
  3. [APVV 0108-06]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The helminths of two sympatric species of rodents, the striped field mouse Apodemus agrarius and the yellow-necked mouse, Apodemus flavicollis from Slovakia were studied to determine whether there are similarities in the composition of the helminth fauna of two closely related host species living in the same area. A total of twelve species of helminths were identified in these rodent populations, including Brachylaima sp. (Trematoda); Hymenolepis diminuta (Rudolphi, 1819), Mesocestoides sp. larvae, Rodentolepis fraterna (Stiles, 1906), Rodentolepis straminea (Goeze, 1782), Skrjabinotaenia lobata (Baer, 1925), Taenia taeniaeformis larvae (Batsch, 1786) (Cestoda); Aonchotheca annulosa (Dujardin, 1845), Heligmosomoides polygyrus (Dujardin, 1845), Heterakis spumosa Schneider, 1866, Mastophorus muris (Gmelin, 1790) and Syphacia stroma (Linstow, 1884) (Nematoda). In A. agrarius, H. polygyrus was the most prevalent, as well as the most abundant helminth, but R. fraterna was the species with the highest mean intensity. In contrast, S. stroma dominated the A. flavicollis helminth fauna with the highest prevalence, mean abundance and mean intensity. Both rodent populations harboured nine helminth species, although the mean individual species richness was significantly higher in A. agrarius than in A. flavicollis. The analysis of helminth diversity at both component and infracommunity levels revealed differences between the two rodent populations, which are most likely attributable to the specific host ecology.

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

4.2
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