Helminth parasites of the wood mouse Apodemus sylvaticus in Southern England: levels of infection, species richness and interactions between species

Résumé fourni par la source

Abstract Helminth parasites of the wood mouse, Apodemus sylvaticus (n = 440), were surveyed in five localities, comprising woodland and grassland sites, in Southern England. Seven species of helminths were identified, among which Heligmosomoides polygyrus and Syphacia stroma were dominant (prevalence = 79.1% and 54.1%, respectively). Less common species were the trematode Corrigia vitta (14.8%), cestodes Catenotaenia pusilla (8.4%), Hydatigera taeniaeformis (4.1%) and Microsomacanthus crenata (3.4%) and the nematode Aonchotheca murissylvatici (0.2%). Differences in prevalences between localities were found for H. polygyrus, H. taeniaeformis and M. crenata and in abundances of H. polygyrus, S. stroma and C. vitta. Age-dependent increases in both parameters were identified among species and for helminth species richness. The only species to show significant host sex bias was S. stroma with prevalence values being higher in male mice. A number of different methods for exploiting raw data, and data corrected for significant confounding factors, were used to determine whether there were significant associations (prevalence) between species or quantitative interactions (abundance). The strongest evidence for a positive association was shown in concurrent infections with the trematode C. vitta and the cestode C. pusilla (significant in the whole dataset and evident in each locality, both sexes and both age classes). The abundance of C. pusilla was also higher in mice with C. vitta and vice versa. Overall, however, there was little support for associations or quantitative interactions between species, especially after data had been corrected for significant extrinsic/intrinsic factors, and we conclude that the helminths of wood mice in these communities are largely non-interactive and hence, perhaps better referred to as assemblages.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.