4.2 Article

Larval trematode infections in Galba truncatula (Gastropoda, Lymnaeidae) from the Brenne Regional Natural Park, central France

Journal

JOURNAL OF HELMINTHOLOGY
Volume 90, Issue 3, Pages 256-261

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0022149X15000073

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Adult Galba truncatula (>= 4mm in shell height) were collected from 135 habitats for 3 years (2012-2014) to identify parasite species via the study of cercariae, and to determine the prevalence of each digenean infection in relation to the type of snail habitat (six types). A total of 323 infected snails and ten digenean species were noted in the bodies of 11,025 G. truncatula after their dissection. Snails with Calicophoron daubneyi and/or Fasciola hepatica were found in 20.7% and 12.5% of the habitats, respectively, and most of these infected snails were collected from rainwater-draining furrows and pools in meadows. The percentages were lower for snails with Echinostoma revolutum (9.6% of habitats) and Haplometra cylindracea (7.4%), and were less than 5% for those parasitized by any of the other five species of digenean. The highest prevalence of all digenean infections was noted in pools (9.4%), followed by furrows located in meadows (8.3%) and ponds (5.1%). The prevalence noted for each digenean infection varied with the type of habitat. In furrows located in meadows, the infection rate of C. daubneyi in snails (3.5%) was significantly higher than that of F. hepatica (2.2%). In pools, values greater than 1.5% were noted for C. daubneyi, H. cylindracea and Opistoglyphe ranae. In ponds, E. revolutum was the dominant species (prevalence, 2.5%). Parasite species richness in G. truncatula was greater in the Brenne Natural Regional Park than in the nearby region of Limousin (ten instead of eight). The distribution and prevalence of each parasite species were dependent on the type and location of each snail habitat.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available