Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:37:50.008Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Missing links: testing the completeness of host-parasite checklists

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2015

ROBERT POULIN ,
ANNE A. BESSON ,
MATHIEU B. MORIN  and
HASEEB S. RANDHAWA
ROBERT POULIN*
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Otago, P.O. Box 56, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand
ANNE A. BESSON
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Otago, P.O. Box 56, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand
MATHIEU B. MORIN
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Otago, P.O. Box 56, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand
HASEEB S. RANDHAWA
Affiliation:
Ecology Degree Programme, University of Otago, P.O. Box 56, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand
*
* Corresponding author: Department of Zoology, University of Otago, P.O. Box 56, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand. E-mail: robert.poulin@otago.ac.nz.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Host-parasite checklists are essential resources in ecological parasitology, and are regularly used as sources of data in comparative studies of parasite species richness across host species, or of host specificity among parasite species. However, checklists are only useful datasets if they are relatively complete, that is, close to capturing all host–parasite associations occurring in a particular region. Here, we use three approaches to assess the completeness of 25 checklists of metazoan parasites in vertebrate hosts from various geographic regions. First, treating checklists as interaction networks between a set of parasite species and a set of host species, we identify networks with a greater connectance (proportion of realized host–parasite associations) than expected for their size. Second, assuming that the cumulative rise over time in the number of known host–parasite associations in a region tends toward an asymptote as their discovery progresses, we attempt to extrapolate the estimated total number of existing associations. Third, we test for a positive correlation between the number of published reports mentioning an association and the time since its first record, which is expected because observing and reporting host–parasite associations are frequency-dependent processes. Overall, no checklist fared well in all three tests, and only three of 25 passed two of the tests. These results suggest that most checklists, despite being useful syntheses of regional host–parasite associations, cannot be used as reliable sources of data for comparative analyses.

Keywords

checklistsconnectanceinteraction networkshelminthsspecies accumulation curvesvertebrates
Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 143 , Issue 1 , January 2016 , pp. 114 - 122
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Arthur, J. R. and Ahmed, A. T. A. (2002). Checklist of the Parasites of Fishes of Bangladesh. Technical Paper no. 369/1, FAO Fisheries, Rome.Google Scholar
Arthur, J. R. and Lumanlan-Mayo, S. (1997). Checklist of the Parasites of Fishes of the Philippines. Technical Paper no. 369, FAO Fisheries, Rome.Google Scholar
Avila, R. W. and Silva, R. J. (2010). Checklist of helminths from lizards and amphisbaenians (Reptila, Squamata) of South America. Journal of Venomous Animals and Toxins Including Tropical Diseases 16, 543–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bebber, D. P., Marriott, F. H. C., Gaston, K. J., Harris, S. A. and Scotland, R. W. (2007). Predicting unknown species numbers using discovery curves. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 274, 1651–1658.Google Scholar
Bellay, S., de Oliveira, E. F., Almeida-Neto, M., Mello, M. A. R., Takemoto, R. M. and Luque, J. L. (2015). Ectoparasites and endoparasites of fish form networks with different structures. Parasitology 142, 901–909.Google Scholar
Bishop, D. M. and Heath, A. C. G. (1998). Parasites of birds in New Zealand: checklist of ectoparasites. Surveillance 25, 15–26.Google Scholar
Cabrero-Sañudo, F. J. and Lobo, J. M. (2003). Estimating the number of species not yet described and their characteristics: the case of Western Palaearctic dung beetle species (Coleoptera, Scarabaeoidea). Biodiversity and Conservation 12, 147–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campiao, K. M., Morais, D. H., Dias, O. T., Aguiar, A., Toledo, G. M., Tavares, L. E. R. and da Silva, R. J. (2014). Checklist of helminth parasites of amphibians from South America. Zootaxa 3843, 1–93.Google Scholar
Dolphin, K. and Quicke, D. L. J. (2001). Estimating the global species richness of an incompletely described taxon: an example using parasitoid wasps (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 73, 279–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, D. D. and Vidrine, M. F. (2006). Host specificity among Unionicola spp. (Acari: Unionicolidae) parasitizing freshwater mussels. Journal of Parasitology 92, 977–983.Google Scholar
Eiras, J. C., Takemoto, R. M. and Pavanelli, G. C. (2010). Diversidade dos Parasitas de Peixes de Agua Doce do Brasil. Clichetec, Maringa, Brazil.Google Scholar
Gregory, R. D., Keymer, A. E. and Harvey, P. H. (1991). Life history, ecology and parasite community structure in Soviet birds. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 43, 249–262.Google Scholar
Hering-Hagenbeck, S. F. B. N. and Boomker, J. (2000). A check-list of the nematode parasites of South African Serpentes (snakes) and Sauria (lizards). Onderstepoort Journal of Veterinary Research 67, 1–13.Google Scholar
Hewitt, G. C. and Hine, P. M. (1972). Checklist of parasites of New Zealand fishes and of their hosts. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 6, 69–114.Google Scholar
Hine, P. M., Jones, J. B. and Diggles, B. K. (2000). A Checklist of the Parasites of New Zealand Fishes, Including Previously Unpublished Records. Technical Report no. 75, National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, Wellington.Google Scholar
Holland, C. V. and Kennedy, C. R. (1997). A checklist of parasitic helminth and crustacean species recorded in freshwater fish from Ireland. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 97B, 225–243.Google Scholar
Hughes, J. and Page, R. D. M. (2007). Comparative tests of ectoparasite species richness in seabirds. BMC Evolutionary Biology 7, 227.Google Scholar
Kamiya, T., O'Dwyer, K., Nakagawa, S. and Poulin, R. (2014). Host diversity drives parasite diversity: meta-analytical insights into patterns and causal mechanisms. Ecography 37, 689–697.Google Scholar
Kirjusina, M. and Vismanis, K. (2007). Checklist of the Parasites of Fishes of Latvia. Technical Paper no. 369/3, FAO Fisheries, Rome.Google Scholar
Lima, D. P., Giacomini, H. C., Takemoto, R. M., Agostinho, A. A. and Bini, L. M. (2012). Patterns of interactions of a large fish-parasite network in a tropical floodplain. Journal of Animal Ecology 81, 905–913.Google Scholar
Martinez, N. D. (1993). Effect of scale on food web structure. Science 260, 242–243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martinez-Aquino, A., Mendoza-Palmero, C. A., Aguilar-Aguilar, R. and Pérez-Ponce de León, G. (2014). Checklist of helminth parasites of Goodeinae (Osteichthyes: Cyprinodontiformes: Goodeidae), an endemic subfamily of freshwater fishes from Mexico. Zootaxa 3856, 151–191.Google Scholar
McKenna, P. (1998). Parasites of birds in New Zealand: checklist of helminth and protozoan parasites. Surveillance 25, 4–12.Google Scholar
McKenna, P. (2010). An updated checklist of helminth and protozoan parasites of birds in New Zealand. Webmed Central Parasitology 1, WMC00705.Google Scholar
Moravec, F. (2001). Checklist of the Metazoan Parasites of Fishes of the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic 1873–2000. Academia, Prague.Google Scholar
Mouillot, D., Krasnov, B. R., Shenbrot, G. I. and Poulin, R. (2008). Connectance and parasite diet breadth in flea-mammal webs. Ecography 31, 16–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oktener, A. (2003). A checklist of metazoan parasites recorded in freshwater fish from Turkey. Zootaxa 394, 1–28.Google Scholar
Oktener, A. (2005). A checklist of parasitic helminths reported from sixty-five species of marine fish from Turkey including two new records of monogeneans. Zootaxa 1063, 33–52.Google Scholar
Oktener, A. (2014). Revision of parasitic helminths reported in freshwater fish from Turkey with new records. Transylvanian Review of Systematical and Ecological Research 16, 1–56.Google Scholar
Palm, H. W. and Caira, J. N. (2008). Host specificity of adult versus larval cestodes of the elasmobranch tapeworm order Trypanorhyncha. International Journal for Parasitology 38, 381–388.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Palm, H. W., Klimpel, S. and Bucher, C. (1999). Checklist of Metazoan Fish Parasites of German Coastal Waters. Report no. 307, Institute for Marine Science, Christian-Albrechts University, Kiel.Google Scholar
Paredes-León, R., Garcia-Prieto, L., Guzmán-Cornejo, C., León-Règagnon, V. and Pérez, T. M. (2008). Metazoan parasites of Mexican amphibians and reptiles. Zootaxa 1904, 1–166.Google Scholar
Pérez-Ponce de León, G. and Choudhury, A. (2010). Parasite inventories and DNA-based taxonomy: lessons from helminths of freshwater fishes in a megadiverse country. Journal of Parasitology 96, 236–244.Google Scholar
Pérez-Ponce de León, G. and Nadler, S. A. (2010). What we don't recognize can hurt us: a plea for awareness about cryptic species. Journal of Parasitology 96, 453–464.Google Scholar
Poulin, R. (1992). Determinants of host-specificity in parasites of freshwater fishes. International Journal for Parasitology 22, 753–758.Google Scholar
Poulin, R. (2007). Are there general laws in parasite ecology? Parasitology 134, 763–776.Google Scholar
Poulin, R. (2010). Network analysis shining light on parasite ecology and diversity. Trends in Parasitology 26, 492–498.Google Scholar
Poulin, R. (2011). Uneven distribution of cryptic diversity among higher taxa of parasitic worms. Biology Letters 7, 241–244.Google Scholar
Price, P. W. and Clancy, K. M. (1983). Patterns in number of helminth parasite species in freshwater fishes. Journal of Parasitology 69, 449–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quiroz-Martinez, B. and Salgado-Maldonado, G. (2013). Taxonomic distinctness and richness of helminth parasite assemblages of freshwater fishes in Mexican hydrological basins. PLoS ONE 8, e74419.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodriguez-Ortiz, B., Garcia-Prieto, L. and Pérez-Ponce de León, G. (2004 a). Checklist of the helminth parasites of vertebrates in Costa Rica. Revista de Biologia Tropical 52, 313–354.Google Scholar
Rodriguez-Ortiz, B., Garcia-Prieto, L. and Pérez-Ponce de León, G. (2004 b). Addendum to the checklist of the helminth parasites of vertebrates in Costa Rica. Revista de Biologia Tropical 52, 355–362.Google Scholar
Salgado-Maldonado, G. (2006). Checklist of helminth parasites of freshwater fishes from Mexico. Zootaxa 1324, 1–357.Google Scholar
Salgado-Maldonado, G. and Quiroz-Martinez, B. (2013). Taxonomic composition and endemism of the helminth fauna of freshwater fishes of Mexico. Parasitology Research 112, 1–18.Google Scholar
Sasal, P., Morand, S. and Guégan, J.-F. (1997). Determinants of parasite species richness in Mediterranean marine fish. Marine Ecology Progress Series 149, 61–71.Google Scholar
Soberón, J. and Llorente, J. (1993). The use of species accumulation functions for the prediction of species richness. Conservation Biology 7, 480–488.Google Scholar
Stouffer, D. B., Camacho, J., Guimerà, R., Ng, C. A. and Amaral, L. A. N. (2005). Quantitative patterns in the structure of model and empirical food webs. Ecology 86, 1301–1311.Google Scholar
Vázquez, D. P., Poulin, R., Krasnov, B. R. and Shenbrot, G. I. (2005). Species abundance and the distribution of specialization in host-parasite interaction networks. Journal of Animal Ecology 74, 946–955.Google Scholar
Vieira, F. M., Luque, J. L. and Muniz-Pereira, L. C. (2008). Checklist of helminth parasites in wild carnivore mammals from Brazil. Zootaxa 1721, 1–23.Google Scholar