Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Acta Parasitologica

4 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 1.160
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.185

CiteScore 2016: 1.24

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.532
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.721

Online
ISSN
1896-1851
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 60, Issue 1 (Mar 2014)

Issues

Wild boar density drives Metastrongylus infection in earthworm

Gábor Nagy
  • Corresponding author
  • Kaposvar University, Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Postal Box 16, 7401 Kaposvár, Hungary;
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Ágnes Csivincsik
  • Food-chain Safety and Animal Health Directorate, Government Office of Somogy County, Postal Box 126, 7401 Kaposvár, Hungary
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ László Sugár
  • Kaposvar University, Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Postal Box 16, 7401 Kaposvár, Hungary
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2014-12-30 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ap-2015-0005

Abstract

Larvae of Metastrongylus spp. lungworms infect wild boar (Sus scrofa) definitive hosts through earthworms (Lumbricidae). We compared the abundance and Metastrongylus spp. larval infection measures of earthworms between two areas (both in Zselic, Hungary, 2012) characterized by markedly different wild boar population densities. Estimated wild boar density was 0.03 animal/ha in free range area and 1.03 animal/ha in enclosure. The mean abundance of earthworm populations (mostly Allolobophora, Aporrectodea, and Lumbricus spp.) was assessed by analysing 140-140 soil samples. The assesment of Metastrongylus spp. larval infection measures was based on cca 100-100 earthworms derived from the two areas. The abundance of earthworms and their Metastrongylus spp. larval infection measures (prevalence and mean intensity) were significantly lower in the free range than in the enclosure. Furthermore, using a finer scale within the enclosure, we compared wild boar feeding sites (n = 30) to other sites (n = 75). Earthworm populations were significantly more abundant and carried significantly more prevalent and more abundant larval lungworm infections at the former sites. These results suggest that high wild boar density and forage supplementation in enclosures increase both the abundance and the larval Metastrongylus infections of earthworms

Keywords: Wild boar; earthworm; Metastrongylus; density dependence

References

  • Alicata J.E. 1935. Early developmental stages of nematodes occuring in swine. Technical Bulletin, No. 489, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., 33-44Google Scholar

  • Altizer S., Nunn C.L., Thrall P.H., Gittleman J.L., Antonovics J., Cunningham A.A., Dobson A.P., Ezenwa V., Jones K.E., Pedersen A.B., Poss M. and Pulliam, J.R.C. 2003. Social organization and parasite risk in mammals: integratingtheory and empirical studies. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, 34: 517 - 547. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys. 34.030102.151725CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Arneberg P., Skorping A., Grenfell B. and Read A.F. 1998. Host densities as determinants of abundance in parasites communites. Proceedings of Royal Society B, 265, 1283-1289. DOI: 10.98/rspb.1998.0431Google Scholar

  • Bagge A.M., Pouling R. and Valtonen E. T. 2008. Fish population size, and not density, as the determining factor of parasite infection: a case study. Parasitology, 128, 305-313. DOI: 10.1017/S0031182003004566CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bush A.O., Lafferty K.D., Lotz J.M. and Shostak A.W. 1997. Parasitology meets ecology on its own terms: Margolis et al. revisited. Journal of Parasitology, 83, 575-583Google Scholar

  • Cross P.C., Drewe J., Patrek V., Pearce G., Samuel M.D. and Delahay R.J. 2009. Wildlife population structure and parasite transmission: implications for disease management In: Delahay R.J., Simth G.C. and Hutchings M.R (Eds) Management of Disease in Wild Mammals, Springer, e-ISBN: 978-4-431-77134-0, 9-29. DOI: 10.1007/978-4-431-77134-0CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hechinger R.F. and Lafferty K.D. 2005. Host diversity begets parasite diversity: bird final hosts and trematodes in snail intermediate hosts. Proceedings of Royal Society B, 272, 1059-1066. DOI:10.1098/rspb.2005.3070CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Humbert J-F. and Henry C. 1989. Studies on prevalence and transmission of lung and stomach nematodes of the wild boar (Sus scrofa) in France. Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 25, 335-341. DOI: 10.7589/0090-3558-25.3.335CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Jaliv H. and Kooch Y. 2012. Factors influence and distribution and abundance of earthworm communities in different forest types (man-made and natural forest). International Journal of Green and Herbal Chemistry, 1, 26-38. E-ISSN: 2278-3229Google Scholar

  • Lindsey A., Mehta M., Dhulipala V., Oberhauser K., and Altizer S. 2009. Crowding and disease: effects of host density on response to infection in a butterflyparasite interaction. Ecological Entomology, 34: 551-561. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2311.2009.01107.x Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Navarro-González N., Serrano E., Casas-Díaz E., Velarde R., Marco I., Rossi L. and Lavín S. 2010. Game restocking and the introduction of sarcoptic mange in wild rabbit in north-eastern Spain. Animal Conservation, 13: 586-591. DOI: 10.1111/ j.1469-1795.2010.00390.x CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Navarro-González N., Fernández-Llario P., Pérez E., Mentaberre, G., López-Martin J.M., Lavín S. and Serrano E. 2013. Supplemental feeding drives endoparasite infection in wild boar in Western Spain. Veterinary Parasitology, 196, 114-123. DOI: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2013.02.019Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Reiczigel J. 2003. Confidence intervals for the binomial parameter: some new considerations. Statistics in Medicine, 22: 611-621. DOI: 10.1002/sim.1320) Reiczigel J. and Rózsa L. 2005. Quantitative Parasitology 3.0, http://www.zoologia.hu/qp/qp.html CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Richard B., Legras M., Margerie P., Mathieu J., Barot S., Caro G., Desjardins T., Dubs F., Dupont L. and Decaëns T. 2012. Spatial distribution of earthworm assemblages in pastures of northwestern France. European Journal of Soil Biology, 53, 62-69. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejsobi.2012.08.005CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Riley H., Pommeresche R., Eltun R., Hansen S. and Korsaeth A. 2008. Soil structure, organic matter and earthworm activity of cropping systems with contrasting tillage, fertilizer levels and manure use. Agriculture, Ecosystem and Environment, 124, 275-284. DOI:10.1016/j.agee.2007.11.002CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Saitoh T. and Takahashi K. 1998. The role of vole population in prevalence of parasite (Echinococcus multilocularis) in foxes. Researches on Population Ecology, 40, 97-105. DOI: 10.1007/ BF02765225CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Schwartz B. and Alicata J.E. 1934. Life history of lungworms parasitic in swine. Technical Bulletin, No. 456, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., 1-41Google Scholar

  • Vicente J., Höfle U., Garrido J.M., Fernández-de-Mera I.G., Acevedo P., Juste R., Barral M. and Gortázar C. 2007. Risk factors associated with the prevalence of tuberculosis-like lesions in fenced wild boar and red deer in south central Spain. Veterinary Research, 38, 451-464. DOI: 10.1051/ vetres:2007002CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Walker M., Hall A., Anderson R. M. and Basáñez M-G. 2009. Density- dependent effects on the weight of female Ascaris lumbricoides infections of humans and its impact on patterns of egg production. Parasites and Vectors 2, 11, DOI: 10.1186/1756-3305-2-11CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

About the article

Received: 2014-01-02

Revised: 2014-05-03

Accepted: 2014-08-25

Published Online: 2014-12-30

Published in Print: 2014-03-01


Citation Information: Acta Parasitologica, ISSN (Online) 1896-1851, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ap-2015-0005.

Export Citation

© 2015. Copyright Clearance Center

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in