4.2 Article

Behaviour of Australian rainforest stream frogs may affect the transmission of chytridiomycosis

期刊

DISEASES OF AQUATIC ORGANISMS
卷 77, 期 1, 页码 1-9

出版社

INTER-RESEARCH
DOI: 10.3354/dao01830

关键词

batrachochytrium dendrobatidis; amphibian chytrid fungus; chytridiomycosis; disease transmission; behaviour; frogs

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The amphibian disease chytridiomycosis, caused by the pathogen Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, has been implicated in mass mortalities, population declines and extinctions of amphibians around the world. In almost all cases, amphibian species that have disappeared or declined due to chytridiomycosis coexist with non-declining species. One reason why some species decline from chytridiomycosis and others do not may be interspecific differences in behaviour. Host behaviour could either facilitate or hinder pathogen transmission, and transmission rates in the field are likely to vary among species according the frequency of factors such as physical contact between frogs, contact with infected water and contact with environmental substrates containing B. dendrobatidis. We tracked 117 frogs (28 Litoria nannotis, 27 L. genimaculata and 62 L. lesueuri) at 5 sites where B, dendrobatidis is endemic in the rainforest of tropical northern Queensland and recorded the frequency of frog-to-frog contact and the frequency of contact with stream water and environmental substrates. Frequency of contact with other frogs and with water were highest in L. nannotis, intermediate in L. genimaculata and lowest in L. lesueueri. Environmental substrate use also differed among species. These species-specific opportunities for disease transmission were correlated with conservation status: L. nannotis is the species most susceptible to chytridiomycosis-related declines and L. lesueuri is the least susceptible. Interspecific variation in transmission probability may, therefore, play a large role in determining why chytridiomycosis drives some populations to extinction and not others.

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