4.3 Article

Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis Infection and Lethal Chytridiomycosis in Caecilian Amphibians (Gymnophiona)

期刊

ECOHEALTH
卷 10, 期 2, 页码 173-183

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10393-013-0831-9

关键词

Africa; Anura; Batrachia; Caudata; chytrid; pet trade; South America

资金

  1. Declining Amphibian Population Task Force
  2. National Geographic
  3. Conservation International's Lost Amphibians scheme
  4. Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund
  5. Percy Sladen Memorial Fund of the Linnean Society
  6. Systematics Association Research Fund
  7. Institute of Zoology London
  8. Zoological Society of London
  9. Volkswagen Foundation
  10. Royal Zoological Society of Scotland
  11. Centre national de la recherche scientifique (Nouragues field station grant)
  12. Morris Animal Foundation
  13. Natural History Museum, London
  14. NERC [NE/G002193/1, NE/G001944/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  15. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/G002193/1, NE/G001944/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd) is commonly termed the 'amphibian chytrid fungus' but thus far has been documented to be a pathogen of only batrachian amphibians (anurans and caudatans). It is not proven to infect the limbless, generally poorly known, and mostly soil-dwelling caecilians (Gymnophiona). We conducted the largest qPCR survey of Bd in caecilians to date, for more than 200 field-swabbed specimens from five countries in Africa and South America, representing nearly 20 species, 12 genera, and 8 families. Positive results were recovered for 58 specimens from Tanzania and Cameroon (4 families, 6 genera, 6+ species). Quantities of Bd were not exceptionally high, with genomic equivalent (GE) values of 0.052-17.339. In addition, we report the first evidence of lethal chytridiomycosis in caecilians. Mortality in captive (wild-caught, commercial pet trade) Geotrypetes seraphini was associated with GE scores similar to those we detected for field-swabbed, wild animals.

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

4.3
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