4.5 Article

Avian haemosporidian parasites in an urban forest and their relationship to bird size and abundance

期刊

URBAN ECOSYSTEMS
卷 19, 期 1, 页码 331-346

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11252-015-0494-0

关键词

Urban parasitology; Zoonosis; Plasmodium; Haemoproteus; Leucocytozoon; Avian malaria

资金

  1. Alexander von Humboldt Foundation
  2. Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia (CONACYT) [CB-2011-01-168524]
  3. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [1008/6-1]
  4. Wissenschaftliche Gesellschaft Freiburg

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Urbanization has been identified as a threat to biodiversity due to landscape modifications. Studies of parasite ecology in urbanized areas lagged behind those made on macro organisms. Here we studied infection prevalence of haemosporidian parasites in an avian community of an urban forest from Germany, and its relationship with bird abundance and body mass. We used PCR to amplify a fragment of the mtDNA cyt b gene to determine the infection status of birds, and bird point counts to determine bird relative abundances. The avifauna was dominated by two small sized insectivore passerines (Parus major, Cyanistes caeruleus), representing similar to 40 % of the total bird records. The highest haemosporidian prevalence was recorded for Turdus philomelos (100 %) and for Fringilla coelebs (75 %). Bird abundance and body mass were positively associated with infection status for two haemosporidian genera: Plasmodium and Leucocytozoon. Infection rate was lower in juveniles compared to adult birds. We recorded a total of 7 Plasmodium, 26 Haemoproteus, and 10 Leucocytozoon lineages. Avian malaria (P. relictum) was detected infecting 5 individuals of P. major, the most abundant species in the community. These results, together with those of previous studies at the same site, suggest that potentially any of the genetic haemosporidian lineages detected in this urban forest can be transmitted across native and pet bird species, and to species of conservation concern housed at aviaries.

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

4.5
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