Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T09:01:40.343Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Helminth communities in amphibians from Latvia, with an emphasis on their connection to host ecology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 August 2021

A. Čeirāns*
Affiliation:
Institute of Life Sciences and Technologies, Daugavpils University, Parades iela 1A, LV-5401, Daugavpils, Latvia
E. Gravele
Affiliation:
Institute of Life Sciences and Technologies, Daugavpils University, Parades iela 1A, LV-5401, Daugavpils, Latvia
I. Gavarane
Affiliation:
Institute of Life Sciences and Technologies, Daugavpils University, Parades iela 1A, LV-5401, Daugavpils, Latvia
M. Pupins
Affiliation:
Institute of Life Sciences and Technologies, Daugavpils University, Parades iela 1A, LV-5401, Daugavpils, Latvia
L. Mezaraupe
Affiliation:
Institute of Life Sciences and Technologies, Daugavpils University, Parades iela 1A, LV-5401, Daugavpils, Latvia
I. Rubenina
Affiliation:
Institute of Life Sciences and Technologies, Daugavpils University, Parades iela 1A, LV-5401, Daugavpils, Latvia
Y. Kvach
Affiliation:
Institute of Marine Biology, NAS of Ukraine, Pushkinska Street, 37, 65048Odessa, Ukraine
A. Skute
Affiliation:
Institute of Life Sciences and Technologies, Daugavpils University, Parades iela 1A, LV-5401, Daugavpils, Latvia
O. Oskyrko
Affiliation:
Faculty of Science, Charles University, Viničná 7, 12844Prague, Czech Republic
O. Nekrasova
Affiliation:
I.I Schmalhausen Institute of Zoologу, NAS of Ukraine, B. Khmelnytskogo Street, 15, 01030, Kyiv, Ukraine
O. Marushchak
Affiliation:
I.I Schmalhausen Institute of Zoologу, NAS of Ukraine, B. Khmelnytskogo Street, 15, 01030, Kyiv, Ukraine
M. Kirjushina
Affiliation:
Institute of Life Sciences and Technologies, Daugavpils University, Parades iela 1A, LV-5401, Daugavpils, Latvia
*
Author for correspondence: A. Čeirāns, E-mail: cuskisa@gmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Helminth infracommunities were studied at 174 sites of Latvia in seven hosts from six amphibian taxa of different taxonomical, ontogenic and ecological groups. They were described using a standard set of parasitological parameters, compared by ecological indices and linear discriminant analysis. Their species associations were identified by Kendall's rank correlation, but relationships with host size and waterbody area were analysed by zero-inflated Poisson and zero-inflated negative binomial regressions. The richest communities (25 species) were found in post-metamorphic semi-aquatic Pelophylax spp. frogs, which were dominated by trematode species of both adult and larval stages. Both larval and terrestrial hosts yielded depauperate trematode communities with accession of aquatic and soil-transmitted nematode species, respectively. Nematode loads peaked in terrestrial Bufo bufo. Helminth infracommunities suggested some differences in host microhabitat or food object selection not detected by their ecology studies. Associations were present in 96% of helminth species (on average, 7.3 associations per species) and dominated positive ones. Species richness and abundances, in most cases, were positively correlated with host size, which could be explained by increasing parasite intake rates over host ontogeny (trematode adult stages) or parasite accumulation (larval Alaria alata). Two larval diplostomid species (Strigea strigis, Tylodelphys excavata) had a negative relationship with host size, which could be caused by parasite-induced host mortality. The adult trematode abundances were higher in larger waterbodies, most likely due to their ecosystem richness, while higher larval abundances in smaller waterbodies could be caused by elevated infection rates under high host densities.

Type
Research Paper
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

Helminths are an important component of natural ecosystems, where they exert effects on their hosts’ growth, physical performance, fecundity and population sizes, which affect connections throughout the ecological network (Thomas et al., Reference Thomas, Poulin, de Meeüs, Guégan and Renaud1999). Helminth infracommunities in amphibians are typically less diverse than those in birds or mammals, but they contain relatively high numbers of helminths that are core species in several hosts (Aho, Reference Aho, Esch, Bush and Aho1990). Amphibians are placed in the middle of food webs, being important prey items for many vertebrates and major predators of invertebrates (Duellman & Trueb, Reference Duellman and Trueb1994), which determines their role as intermediate, definitive or paratenic hosts for many parasites with complex life cycles (Smyth & Smyth, Reference Smyth and Smyth1980; Galaktionov & Dobrovolskij, Reference Galaktionov and Dobrovolskij2003; Toledo & Fried, Reference Toledo, Schwartz, Nomura, Aguiar, Velota, da Silva and Anjos2019).

There are many studies on helminth community compositions in amphibian hosts across Europe. Relatively recent works have been published concerning post-metamorphic ranid frogs from Germany (Andreas, Reference Andreas2006) and Poland (Popiolek et al., Reference Popiolek, Rozenblut-Koscisty, Kot, Nosal and Ogielska2011; Okulewicz et al., Reference Okulewicz, Hildebrand, Łysowski, Bunkovska and Perec-Matysiak2014), bufonid toads from Belarus (Shimalov & Shimalov, Reference Shimalov and Shimalov2001) and Pelophylax spp. frogs from Serbia (Bjelić-Čabrilo et al., Reference Bjelić-Čabrilo, Popović and Paunovic2009) and Ukraine (Kuzmin et al., Reference Kuzmin, Dmytrieva, Marushchak, Morozov-Leonov, Oskyrko and Nekrasova2020). Annotated helminth check lists are available for the main post-metamorphic anuran hosts (Rana spp., Bufo bufo, Pelophylax spp.) from the Volga River basin of Russia (Chikhlyaev & Ruchin, Reference Chikhlyaev and Ruchin2014, Reference Chikhlyaev and Ruchin2021; Chikhlyaev et al., Reference Chikhlyaev, Kirillova and Kirillov2018a, Reference Chikhlyaev, Ruchin and Fayzulinb, Reference Chikhlyaev, Ruchin and Fayzulin2019a, Reference Chikhlyaev, Ruchin and Fayzulinb, Reference Chikhlyaev, Ruchin and Kirillov2020) and the Ural Region of Russia (Burakova & Vershinin, Reference Burakova and Vershinin2016; Burakova & Baytimirova, Reference Burakova and Baytimirova2017; Vershinin et al., Reference Vences, Galan, Palanca, Vieites, Ni Eto and Rey2017). Brief reports on helminthological investigations in post-metamorphic newts have been made for Greece (Sattaman, Reference Sattaman1990) and Belarus (Shimalov et al., Reference Shimalov, Shimalov and Shimalov2001), and recently the Lissotriton vulgaris helminth community composition has also been studied by combining morphological identification and DNA sequencing (Sinsch et al., Reference Sinsch, Heneberg, Těšínský, Balczun and Scheid2019). Older studies, often published as brief notes in local sources in national languages, have also been summarized (Ryzhikov et al., Reference Ryzhikov, Sharpilo and Shevechenko1980; Sudarikov et al., Reference Sudarikov, Shigin, Kurochkin, Lomakin, Stenko and Yurlova2002). However, helminth community studies in European amphibian larval stages are very few (Avery, Reference Avery1971), in contrast with many studies in North America (e.g. Bursey & Dewolf, Reference Bursey and Dewolf1998; Koprivnikar et al., Reference Koprivnikar, Baker and Forbes2006; Rhoden & Bolek, Reference Rhoden and Bolek2015).

A number of local or intrinsic factors affect helminth aggregations in amphibians, such as spatial heterogeneity, host body size, parasite dimensions and virulence, and parasite and intermediate-host productivities (Campião et al., Reference Campião, Ribas, Morais, Silva and Tavares2015; Johnson & Wilber, Reference Johnson and Wilber2017; Toledo et al., Reference Toledo and Fried2017; Mihaljevic et al., Reference Mihaljevic, Hoye and Johnson2018). In addition, fish studies suggest a high importance of individual host susceptibility (Tinsley et al., Reference Tinsley, Rose Vineer, Grainger-Wood and Morgan2020) and show more complicated mechanisms determining helminth infection rates, such as ontogenic dietary shifts that change parasite intake pathways (Saad-Fares & Combes, Reference Saad-Fares and Combes1992), or the presence of certain parasite infection levels that are optimal for the host body condition (Maceda-Veiga et al., Reference Maceda-Veiga, Green, Poulin and Lagrue2016). Common invasion pathways or biological interactions (such as mutual facilitation or competition) may cause parasite species associations in hosts (Dallas et al., Reference Dallas, Laine and Ovaskainen2019) that, so far, have been noted in very few amphibian helminth community studies (Hamann et al., Reference Hamann, González and Kehr2006a, Reference Burakova and Baytimirova2010, Reference Hamann, Kehr and González2013a, Reference Hamann, Kehr and González2014). Many studies have shown the effect of anthropogenic habitats, such as soybean agriculture (Koprivnikar & Redfern, Reference Koprivnikar and Redfern2012), pasture and rice agriculture (Hamann et al., Reference Hamann, González and Kehr2006b, Reference Hamann, González and Fernández2020; Campião et al., Reference Campião, Ribas, Silva, Dalazen and Tavares2017), crop vs. livestock land uses (Draghi et al., Reference Draghi, Drago, Saibene and Agostini2020; Portela et al., Reference Portela, Dos Santos and Dos Anjos2020), and urban and pesticide polluted areas (King et al., Reference King, McLaughlin, Gendron, Pauli, Giroux, Rondeau, Boily, Juneau and Marcogliese2007), on their composition, species richness and abundances. Helminths may provide clues to freshwater trophic state and water quality (Zargar et al., Reference Yang, Harlow, Puggioni and Redding2011), but, in general, the effect of freshwater habitat qualities on helminth communities in vertebrate hosts remains understudied. Thus, to our knowledge, there are no studies on the effect of waterbody size, which clearly affects habitat spatial diversity and waterbody buffering capacities against external pressures (Biggs et al., Reference Biggs, von Fumetti and Kelly-Quinn2016) that could be important for complex trematode life cycles (Galaktionov & Dobrovolskij, Reference Galaktionov and Dobrovolskij2003).

Surprisingly few studies in Western Palearctic amphibians have paid attention to species associations, relationship with host size or the habitat effect other than simple terrestrial vs. aquatic division. Some of these surveys confirm species richness or parasite total abundances as being higher in larger hosts (Andreas, Reference Andreas2006; Kuzmin et al., Reference Kuzmin, Dmytrieva, Marushchak, Morozov-Leonov, Oskyrko and Nekrasova2020), while others indicate the prevalence and intensity being positively related to the host size in separate trematode species (Abdel-Gaber et al., Reference Abdel-Gaber, Maher, Kamel and El Deeb2017; Ozoliņa et al., Reference Ozoliņa, Deksne, Pupins, Gravele, Gavarane and Kirjušina2021) or describe changes in the post-metamorphic ranid frog infracommunities along the urbanization gradient (Vershinin et al., Reference Vences, Galan, Palanca, Vieites, Ni Eto and Rey2017). Antagonism between some nematode and trematode species has been noted in communities in the Danube basin (Bjelić-Čabrilo et al., Reference Bjelić-Čabrilo, Popović and Paunovic2009).

Amphibian helminth communities in Latvia and the east Baltic region were virtually unstudied before the present survey, with the single exception being a study on Alaria alata mesocercariae infections in ranid and bufonid amphibian hosts (Ozoliņa et al., Reference Ozoliņa, Deksne, Pupins, Gravele, Gavarane and Kirjušina2021). Since 2016, amphibians have been targeted by several state-wide monitoring surveys in Latvia, which allowed us to visit many sites and perform extensive sampling for parasitological investigations. For the present study, we sampled amphibians from different taxonomical (anurans from two families and newts), ontogenic (larval and post-metamorphic) and ecological (terrestrial, semi-aquatic, aquatic) groups. The aims of this study were: (1) to provide basic information on helminth infracommunities in Latvian amphibians (such as species lists and standard parasitological parameters); (2) to compare helminth communities between hosts from various taxonomical, ecological and ontogenic groups; (3) to identify species associations; and (4) to find out helminth infection relationships with host ontogeny (stage, size) and waterbody size, which could be related to ecological traits or life cycles of both hosts and parasites.

Materials and methods

Study sites and sampling

Amphibians were collected in June–August of 2017–2020 at 174 sites covering the whole territory of Latvia (fig. 1). We sampled seven hosts from six amphibian taxa: 370 post-metamorphic water frogs (a species complex, Pelophylax spp.) from 107 sites (range 1–26; median 2 per site); 90 water frog tadpoles from ten sites (1–70; 2.5); three moor frogs (Rana arvalis) from two sites; 26 common frogs (Rana temporaria) from seven sites (1–16; 1); 53 common toads (B. bufo) from 22 sites (1–18; 1); 249 larval smooth newts (L. vulgaris) from 53 sites (1–22; 2.5); and 18 larval great crested newts (Triturus cristatus) from 13 sites (1–2; 1). The water frog (Pelophylax) species complex was identified only to a generic level, because the species separation in a typical for Latvia mixed lessonae-esculentus populations produce many errors when based solely on morphological data (Mayer et al., Reference Mayer, Hawlitschek, Zahn and Glaw2013), but some other study showed a lack of substantial effect of water frog genetics on helminth communities (Popiolek et al., Reference Popiolek, Rozenblut-Koscisty, Kot, Nosal and Ogielska2011).

Fig. 1. Location of sampled sites.

Water frogs, their tadpoles and newt larvae were collected by hand net in waterbodies, while terrestrial amphibians (Rana, Bufo post-metamorphs) were collected by hand. A sampler spent ~ 20 min at each site, typically collecting all available amphibians, except T. cristatus, which is a rare and protected species in Latvia and, therefore, its samples were limited to 1–2 specimens per site, depending on observed abundance. Amphibians were placed into separate plastic boxes with water and aeration holes and transported to the laboratory. Post-metamorphic amphibians were measured and weighed. Their size ranges covered the variation in the whole population: Pelophylax spp. 2.1–11.1 (median 5.4); R. temporaria 1.8–9.2 (5.2); R. arvalis 2.9–6.4 (5.3); and B. bufo 2.0–10.1 (6.8) cm.

Helminth investigations

Parasitological investigations of collected animals were carried out during the 24 h after samples were delivered to the laboratory (Daugavpils University Ethical committee decision no. 26/2). The animals were euthanized in accordance with Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes and according to the guidelines of the Federation of European Laboratory Animal Science Associations (FELASA) (Guillen, Reference Guillen2012), by a percussive blow to the head under the supervision of a FELASA Category C certified specialist. A full standard parasitological investigation of the euthanized animals was carried out (Skryabin, Reference Skryabin1928; Justine et al., Reference Justine, Briand and Bray2012), including examination of skin that was peeled off and rinsed in distilled water and all internal organs, body cavity, visceral membranes and limb musculature that were dissected, compressed between two slides and examined with the aid of microscopy. Encapsulated larval stages were released from surrounding tissues and analysed at ×100–400 magnification. A total of 841 host specimens were analysed. Helminth identification was based solely on their morphology. They were identified, mainly to species level, with the aid of essential references containing taxonomic keys and species descriptions (e.g. Ryzhikov et al., Reference Ryzhikov, Sharpilo and Shevechenko1980; Sudarikov et al., Reference Sudarikov, Shigin, Kurochkin, Lomakin, Stenko and Yurlova2002; Jones et al., Reference Jones, Bray and Gibson2005).

Data analyses

The role of each helminth taxon in the community was described by a standard set of parameters used in parasitology (Bush et al., Reference Bush, Lafferty, Lotz and Shostak1997), such as abundance (A), prevalence (P) and infection intensity (I). For host-specific infracommunity descriptions, we used species richness (S), natural logarithm Shannon–Wiener diversity index (H′) and Pielou evenness (J′) (Shannon & Weaver, Reference Shannon and Weaver1949; Pielou, Reference Pielou1966). We chose the Sorensen index (Magurran, Reference Magurran2004) for species composition (or qualitative) comparison due to the small relative biases caused by undersampling (Chao et al., Reference Chao, Chazdon, Colwell and Shen2006), and the Morisita–Horn index (Horn, Reference Horn1966) for comparisons of helminth proportions in infracommunities (or quantitative comparison), due to its suitability for surveys with unequal sampling (Chao et al., Reference Chao, Chazdon, Colwell and Shen2006). We performed Kendall's rank correlation (KR) to identify helminth associations in hosts. In each helminth species, we also estimated the host-specific dominance index, which was calculated as the abundance ratio to the abundance of the most numerous species (Poulin et al., Reference Poulin, Luque, Guilhaumon and Mouillot2008). We performed linear discriminant analysis (LDA) to dimensionally reduce infracommunity data and visualize their placement along canonical axes. In the LDA, we used a data set with samples containing at least two parasite species (sample sizes: Pelophylax spp. post-metamorphs 203; Pelophylax spp. tadpoles 32; B. bufo 44; R. temporaria 15; R. arvalis 2; L. vulgaris 32; T. cristatus 2).

We performed zero-inflated Poisson regression (ZIP) and zero-inflated negative binomial regression (ZINB) with a constant inflation option to detect statistically significant helminth infection relationships with host size or waterbody area. While both these regression types are used to deal with data sets with excessive zeroes, ZINB is generally a recommended option for overdispersed data distributions (Yang et al., Reference Vershinin, Burakova and Vershinina2017), which was typical for our helminth counts. However, ZIP models may actually perform better on empirical overdispersed count data (Zell et al., Reference Zargar, Yousuf, Chishti, Ahmed, Bashir and Ahmed2019) and, therefore, we used both ZIP and ZINB in our analyses. The independent unit in our parasite–host size analyses was a sample, but in the parasite–waterbody size analyses it was a site. We pooled data from both hosts’ sexes because their separate analyses produced basically the same results but strongly reduced data pool, and several studies have confirmed the absence of effect of sex on helminth prevalence and intensities in given host taxa (Andreas, Reference Andreas2006; Abdel-Gaber et al., Reference Abdel-Gaber, Maher, Kamel and El Deeb2017; Ozoliņa et al., Reference Ozoliņa, Deksne, Pupins, Gravele, Gavarane and Kirjušina2021).

In our parasite response to host size analysis, we created a series of host and parasite taxon-specific data sets, where we placed only the samples from sites where a given helminth taxon was detected in a given host. For statistically significant models, we referred to McFadden's pseudo R 2 as a measure of goodness of fit for non-nested models (Menard, Reference Menard2000) and the z-score as a measure of data dispersion in the correlations (Sprinthall, Reference Sprinthall2011) to evaluate which host size parameter – length (cm) or weight (g) – better fitted the data. Populations of the same amphibian species can vary across sites in length–weight response curves. This could be caused by site-specific food resource availability, habitat thermal properties, sex, population genetics, etc. (Duellman & Trueb, Reference Duellman and Trueb1994) that may blur a parasite–host size relationship when the pooled data from several sites are being used. However, it may cause only Type II errors (showing a poorer relationship than actually occurs), which cannot invalidate the detected overall (or typical) trend in a given parasite–host system.

In the parasite response to waterbody size analysis, we created host-specific data sets where helminth average abundances per site, site average and total species richness were dependent variables and the waterbody area (ha) was a predictor. This analysis was limited to two hosts (Pelophylax spp. post-metamorphs and L. vulgaris larvae) and to sites with at least three samples per given host present. Here, we also omitted sites where samples were collected in unclosed linear habitats (channels, ditches or riverbanks) that did not allow meaningful area measurements. Waterbody areas were measured on orthophoto maps using the Google Earth Pro software (Google LLC, Mountain View, California, USA) and ranged from 0.01 to 16.92 (median 0.09) ha.

The possible host size relationship with the waterbody size was tested by the Poisson regression (PR). The correlation was absent (dependent variable: host length (cm); predictor: waterbody area (ha); log likelihood ratio chi-square = 1.25, McFadden's pseudo R 2 = 0.001, likelihood ratio chi-square test P = 0.264).

LDA was performed on Past 4 (developed by Ø. Hammer, D.A.T. Harper and P.D. Ryan from the Natural History Museum, University of Oslo, Norway). KR, PR, ZIP and ZINB were performed on STATA 14.2 (StataCorp LLC, College Station, Texas, USA) with the Stata Technical Bulletin insertion ‘Scalar measures of fit for regression models’ (developed by J. Scott Long, Indian University and Jeremy Freese, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA).

Results

The full results of the parasitological investigation are given in supplementary tables S1–S5. We identified a total of 17 trematode, one monogenean, seven nematode and one acanthocephalan species in our samples (table 1). The richest were the infracommunities in post-metamorphic water frogs (Pelophylax spp.), which contained 25 species. The poorest were larval T. cristatus infracommunities, with only four species, and the most skewed were also communities in amphibian larval stages (Pelophylax spp., L. vulgaris). Dominant or sub-dominant helminth species in Latvian amphibians were trematodes – A. alata (in R. temporaria, Pelophylax spp.), Diplodiscus subclavatus (in R. arvalis), Opisthioglyphe ranae (in Pelophylax spp., L. vulgaris) and Tylodelphys excavata (in Pelophylax spp.), and nematodes – Hedruris androphora (in T. cristatus), Neoraillietnema praeputiale, Oswaldocruzia filiformis and Rhabdias bufonis (all in B. bufo, R. temporaria) (table 2).

Table 1. Helminth infracommunities in amphibians from Latvia: abundance (A; average for all samples ± standard deviation), prevalence (P, %), species richness (S; total and average for infected samples ± standard deviation), diversity (H′) and evenness (J′) in major taxonomic groups and life stages.

a Unidentified taxa. larv, larvae; ad, adults; n.e., not estimable.

Table 2. Dominance index for helminth taxa in post-metamorphic (PM) and larval (L) amphibian hosts.

a msc – mesocercariae, mtc – metacercariae, larv – larvae, ad – adults. Index values >0.5 in bold.

Helminth infracommunity similarities depended on both host taxonomic closeness and common habitat (table 3). A terrestrial Ranidae frog (R. temporaria) yielded infracommunities that quantitatively (in species proportions) were more similar to those of a terrestrial Bufonidae toad (B. bufo), while qualitatively (in species composition alone) they had about equal similarities to both a Bufonidae toad from the same habitat and a Ranidae frog (Pelophylax spp.) from a different habitat. In semi-aquatic Ranidae frog (Pelophylax spp.) post-metamorphs, the helminth species composition was more similar to that in the terrestrial Ranidae post-metamorphs, while quantitatively their communities were more similar to those in their own larval stages. In amphibian larval stages, infracommunities in the first newt species (L. vulgaris) were more similar to those in frog tadpoles than those in the other newt species in both qualitative and quantitative indices, while the opposite was true in the second newt species (T. cristatus).

Table 3. Infracommunity comparisons between hosts by Sorensen index for qualitative (upper-right section) and MorisitaHorn index for quantitative (lower-left section) similarities (R. arvalis skipped due to small sample size).

In the LDA, which we used to discriminate infracommunities from various hosts, the first two canonical axes explained 92.4% of the total variation (fig. 2). The first axis (eigenvalue 1.82, 78.6% of variation) alone was the main discriminant function, which arranged hosts along the aquatic–terrestrial habitat gradient, with the highest positive loadings being from dominant terrestrial nematodes, R. bufonis (0.243) and N. praeputiale (0.159), but negative from a rare trematode (Diplostomum spathacerum −0.332), an acantocephalan (−0.180), a monogenean (−0.374) and aquatic nematodes (H. androphora −0.287; Gyrinicola tba −0.235; Heligmosomoides polygyrus −0.156; Cosmocera ornata −0.146). All trematode species with a dominance index >0.1 and the dominant nematode, O. filiformis, had loadings within the interval between −0.05 and +0.05. The second axis was far less important (eigenvalue 0.32, 13.8% of variation), and separated hosts within the aquatic ecosystem, with the highest positive loading coming from the nematode H. androphora (4.373) but negative loadings from some other aquatic nematodes (G. tba −0.294; C. ornata −0.267), a monogenean (−0.373) and some trematodes (Haematoloechus variegatus −0.171; Skrjabinoeces similis −0.138). Hence, the LDA analysis separated larval great crested newt (T. cristatus) infra-communities from those in other aquatic and semi-aquatic hosts, mainly by the dominance of the aquatic nematode, H. androphora, but the dominance of terrestrial nematodes (R. bufonis, N. praeputiale) distinguished terrestrial amphibian (B. bufo, R. temporaria) infracommunities.

Fig. 2. LDA chart for helminth infracommunities in post-metamorphic (PM) and larval (L) hosts. Numbers denoting the host taxa are placed on group means; hosts with less than three samples have no convex hulls in the chart. Axis 1 can be interpreted as an aquatic–terrestrial habitat gradient, while axis 2 separates hosts in the aquatic habitat.

The Kendall rank correlation matrix for helminth species associations is given in supplementary table S6. All but one (nematode H. androphora) helminth species were correlated to the other species (on average, 7.3 associations per species), where their positive associations (present in 96% of species) were far more typical than negative ones (present in 36% of species), and, with the single exception of Paralepoderma cloacicola, positive associations were also statistically stronger (fig. 3). The most involved were adult plagiorchiid trematodes, which always had associations with other species from their own guild, diplostomid larval trematodes and an acanthocephalan. Gastrointestinal nematodes showed notable difference in aquatic vs. terrestrial infection route species since aquatic C. ornata possessed an association pattern similar to that of the plagiorchiid trematodes, while terrestrial N. praeputiale and O. filiformis were associated mainly with other terrestrial nematodes. A markedly negative association was found between the lung nematode, R. bufonis, and the plagiorchiid larvae guild.

Fig. 3. The strengths of species associations within helminth infra-communities given as the summations of the statistically significant (P < 0.05) tau-b statistics in the Kendall's rank correlation matrix (number of associations in parentheses).

Of the 22 helminth infection–host length models, ZIP performed better in 18 cases, as indicated by the Bayesian information criterion (BIC), but in two cases the models were equal (table 4). In two more cases, ZINB had slightly higher BIC values, but ZINB and ZIP had equal, or the latter had slightly higher, pseudo R 2 values. Hence, ZIP was clearly preferable over ZINB. Both helminth abundances and species richness had positive relationships with the host size. In adult trematode abundances, there was a better relationship with host weight; while in adult trematode species richness, larval trematode and nematode abundances and species richness relationships were better with host length (table 5). Relationships with host size were also present in six trematode and three nematode species. Larval trematode, A. alata, and gastrointestinal nematodes N. praeputiale and O. filiformis infections were better correlated to host length, while adult trematode – Pleurogenes claviger – to the host weight. Two other trematode species (Echinoparyphium recurvatum, P. medians) and the lung nematode, R. bufonis, had a similar goodness of fit in both length and weight models. Two larval trematode species (Strigea strigis, T. excavata) had a negative relationship with host size.

Table 4. Summary statistics for zero-inflated Poisson regression (ZIP) and zero-inflated negative binomial regression (ZINB) models for helminth abundance (A) or species richness (S) relationships with host length and in post-metamorphic amphibian hosts.

a Gastrointestinal nematodes, all nematode species of our study except R. bufonis. logLIK, log likelihood ratio chi-square; McPsR2, McFadden's pseudo R 2; BIC, Bayesian information criterion; P, likelihood ratio chi-square test.

Table 5. Comparison of goodness of fit and dispersion in zero-inflated Poisson regression (ZIP) models for helminth abundances (A) or species richness (S) relationships with host length vs. host weight.

Only statistically significant relationships given. Hosts: Pkl, Pelophylax species complex; RT, Rana temporaria; BB, Bufo bufo; McPsR2, McFadden's pseudo R 2; z [pr], z-score for the predictor.

a Pooled for all the species except R. bufonis; likelihood ratio chi-square test P < 0.01 in all the models.

Of eight helminth infection–waterbody size models, ZIP was better in seven cases, but in one case BIC was slightly higher in ZINB (table 6). Species richness was not related to waterbody area, but a positive relationship was found in pooled adult trematode abundance and in two separate adult trematode species (P. claviger, P. medians). A negative correlation with waterbody size was found in pooled larval trematode abundance in two hosts, in two separate larval trematode species (A. alata, O. ranae) and in the nematode, O. filiformis.

Table 6. Summary statistics for zero-inflated Poisson regression (ZIP) and zero-inflated negative binomial regression (ZINB) models for helminth abundance relationships with waterbody area in semi-aquatic and aquatic amphibian hosts.

Pkl, post-metamorphic Pelophylax spp.; Lvulg, Lissotriton vulgaris larvae; logLIK, log likelihood ratio chi-square; McPsR2, McFadden's pseudo R 2; BIC, Bayesian information criterion; P, likelihood ratio chi-square test; z [pr], z-score for the predictor.

Discussion

The results of our study fit general patterns with semi-aquatic amphibians yielding the richest helminth communities (Aho, Reference Aho, Esch, Bush and Aho1990), nematodes dominating in terrestrial amphibian taxa and trematodes in semi-aquatic taxa (Hamann et al., Reference Hamann, Kehr and González2013b; Okulewicz et al., Reference Okulewicz, Hildebrand, Łysowski, Bunkovska and Perec-Matysiak2014; Burakova & Vershinin, Reference Burakova and Vershinin2016). The water frogs (Pelophylax spp.) at our study sites were the core hosts, with rich trematode communities of both larval and adult stages with diverse life cycles and ecological connections (fig. 4). Nematode species richness was similar in several hosts, but their loads peaked in terrestrial B. bufo. Amphibian larval stages basically yielded a depauperated community of semi-aquatic frogs, supplemented by some rare nematode species (G. tba, H. androphora). The admission of H. androphora separated larval newt, especially T. cristatus, communities from other aquatic and semi-aquatic hosts. It is noteworthy that the post-metamorphic newts from the neighbouring Belarus had infracommunities very similar to those of Pelophylax spp. frogs in our study (Shimalov et al., Reference Shimalov, Shimalov and Shimalov2001), while they were very different in more distant Germany (Sinsch et al., Reference Sinsch, Heneberg, Těšínský, Balczun and Scheid2019). There were two dominant trematode species in Latvia – A. alata and O. ranae – that infected both larval and post-metamorphic amphibian stages. Unlike O. ranae, A. alata had a statistically significant positive relationship with host size that may look like a steady accumulation over host ontogeny. However, plotting of prevalence and infection loads against ontogenetic stage and host size classes showed a sharp decline in prevalence in the first post-metamorphic size (fig. 5), which could be caused by the elevated mortality of infected tadpoles around the metamorphosis stage. In larval O. ranae infections, such a decline was absent.

Fig. 4. Structure of helminth infracommunities in amphibian hosts from Latvia (R. arvalis omitted due to small sample size). Typical helminth species from each unit given on top of their columns. x-axis: first row = taxonomic group; second row = life stage in amphibians (trematodes; from aquatic habitat) or parasite larval habitat (nematodes); third row = other hosts (trematodes) or location in hosts (nematodes). Abbreviations: AQUA, aquatic; OPT, Odonata, Plecoptera, Ephemeroptera, Trichoptera; Gen arthr, wide range of arthropod hosts.

Fig. 5. Prevalence (P, %; dashed line) and infection intensities (I, aver; columns) in two dominant trematode species larval stages over water frog (Pelophylax spp.) host ontogeny. x-axis = ontogenic stage and post-metamorphs’ size class; left y-axis = prevalence; right y-axis = infection intensity (data from two A. alata-infected and five O. ranae-infected sites). Abbreviations: msc, mesocercariae; mtc, metacercariae; aver, average.

Opisthioglyphe ranae was also a dominant or common species in studies in Germany (Andreas, Reference Andreas2006), Poland (Okulewicz et al., Reference Okulewicz, Hildebrand, Łysowski, Bunkovska and Perec-Matysiak2014), Ukraine (Kuzmin et al., Reference Kuzmin, Dmytrieva, Marushchak, Morozov-Leonov, Oskyrko and Nekrasova2020), Serbia (Bjelić-Čabrilo et al., Reference Bjelić-Čabrilo, Popović and Paunovic2009), Russia's Volga River (Chikhlyaev et al., Reference Chikhlyaev, Kirillova and Kirillov2018a) and the Ural region (Vershinin et al., Reference Vences, Galan, Palanca, Vieites, Ni Eto and Rey2017), where A. alata was absent or rare. The lack of A. alata at many of these sites could be explained by habitat type since our survey showed its preference for smaller waterbodies, but waterbodies were large, or their type was not specified in the studies above. One other study showed A. alata domination in frogs in some smaller pools behind beaver dams (Chikhlyaev & Ruchin, Reference Chikhlyaev and Ruchin2020). Alaria alata preferences toward particular amphibian host species may also vary across sites. While its abundance and prevalence were higher in Pelophylax frogs than in Rana (represented mainly by R. temporaria) frogs in our study, the opposite was true for France (Patrelle et al., Reference Patrelle, Portier, Jouet, Delorme and Ferte2015) and Germany (Andreas, Reference Andreas2006). In Russia, the highest loads have been registered in R. arvalis, while Pelophylax spp. and R. temporaria were much less infected (Chikhlyaev & Ruchin, Reference Chikhlyaev and Ruchin2020). Alaria alata may be present at low loads in the common toad (B. bufo), while the natterjack toad (Epidalea calamita) that breeds exclusively in small, very shallow pools (Drobenkov, Reference Drobenkov2015), can be extremely heavily infected, reaching 50% prevalence and loaded with up to 1600 larvae per single host (Shimalov & Shimalov, Reference Shimalov and Shimalov2001).

Trematode infracommunities in post-metamorphic amphibians from Latvia were more variable than those from sub-tropical Argentina (Hamann et al., Reference Hamann, Kehr and González2013b): while semi-aquatic Pelophylax spp. yielded more species in total (but not on average per host specimen) and had more even (as indicated by Pielou's J′) trematode communities, terrestrial B. bufo and R. temporaria yielded poorer and typically more skewed communities compared with the Argentinian ones. Nematode-dominated communities in terrestrial anurans from Brazilian rainforest had lower species richness and were more variable in diversity and evenness than those from Latvia (Toledo et al., Reference Toledo and Fried2017). Most of the helminth species of our study were involved in associations with other helminths. Dominant species typically had many associations, with the only exceptions being T. excavata and H. androphora. Latvian infracommunities yielded much more associations per parasite species (7.3 on average) than those in Argentina (0.1–0.3 on average), where negative associations were equal to or more frequent than positive ones (Hamann et al., Reference Hamann, González and Kehr2006b, Reference Hamann, Kehr and González2010, Reference Hamann, Kehr and González2013a). In Latvia, positive associations dominated, which is consistent with the data from small mammals (Dallas et al., Reference Dallas, Laine and Ovaskainen2019), suggesting that this could be a more typical pattern in small tetrapod communities. Negative associations between soil-transmitted nematodes O. filiformis, N. praeputiale, R. bufonis and many trematodes (especially larval O. ranae and P. cloacicola) of our study could be explained by terrestrial vs. aquatic infection routes. However, in trematodes, we did not find evidence for the intra-guild association dominance over inter-guild ones and causes for species associations in most cases are unclear and require further study.

Helminth infracommunity structure could be a good indicator of its host's habitat and feeding habit preferences, showing differences in a microhabitat or food object selection not detected by their ecology studies. In our study, a terrestrial frog, R. temporaria, yielded a transitional community between that of a semi-aquatic frog (Pelophylax spp.) and a terrestrial toad (B. bufo), as indicated by its depauperate trematode infracommunities and intermediate nematode loads (fig. 4). Rana temporaria is an explosive breeder, present in waterbodies only in early spring, to a lesser extent than B. bufo (Čeirāns et al., Reference Čeirāns, Pupina and Pupins2020), but it has more water-permeable skin (Bentley & Yorio, Reference Bentley and Yorio1976) and may move to shoreline habitats during the summertime (Vences et al., Reference Tyler2000), where trematodes may ascend with occasional aquatic prey. The other Rana species in our study – R. arvalis – had only three samples but they were in line with other studies (Andreas, Reference Andreas2006; Okulewicz et al., Reference Okulewicz, Hildebrand, Łysowski, Bunkovska and Perec-Matysiak2014; Vershinin et al., Reference Vences, Galan, Palanca, Vieites, Ni Eto and Rey2017; Chikhlyaev & Ruchin, Reference Chikhlyaev and Ruchin2020) that showed trematode infection rates in R. arvalis being higher than those of R. temporaria. Together, this suggests an increase of terrestriality in the following order: Pelophylax spp. – R. arvalis – R. temporaria – B. bufo, whereas the last three hosts are usually regarded as equally terrestrial in their ecology accounts (e.g. Arnold & Ovenden, Reference Arnold and Ovenden2002; Speybroeck et al., Reference Speybroeck, Beukema, Bok, Van and Velikov2016).

The nematode R. bufonis was virtually absent in Pelophylax spp. frogs, but it was frequent in R. temporaria frogs, and especially in B. bufo toads. Rhabdias bufonis differs from other nematodes of our study in being a lung parasite, which invades the amphibian host through skin penetration by the larvae produced by free-living generation in soil, where they arise from hosts’ faeces (Spieler & Schierenberg, Reference Spieler and Schierenberg1995). Its free-living form has an extremely short life-span (Gems, Reference Gems and Lee2002), and it is highly unlikely that terrestrial amphibians could attain the 50% prevalence observed in this nematode (Okulewicz et al., Reference Okulewicz, Hildebrand, Łysowski, Bunkovska and Perec-Matysiak2014) from contact with random soil. Since amphibians prefer shelters with moist soil (Cohen & Alford, Reference Cohen and Alford1996), which facilitate nematode survival (Coleman & Wall, Reference Coleman, Wall and Paul2015), we suggest that the host will be infested mainly in regularly used terrestrial shelters where they defecate, but host-specific R. bufonis infection rates could be caused by differences in host fidelities in the use of such shelters.

The higher overall infestation of larger hosts in our study was in line with other studies (Andreas, Reference Andreas2006; Abdel-Gaber et al., Reference Abdel-Gaber, Maher, Kamel and El Deeb2017; Toledo et al., Reference Toledo and Fried2017; Kuzmin et al., Reference Kuzmin, Dmytrieva, Marushchak, Morozov-Leonov, Oskyrko and Nekrasova2020) and could be caused either by higher parasite intake rates by larger hosts or by the accumulation of parasites with host age (Poulin, Reference Poulin2007). Our data suggest the presence of both mechanisms in the studied infracommunities: in intermediate-host generalist plagiorchiid trematodes, P. claviger and P. medians, which have a short-living adult stage in frogs (Sudarikov et al., Reference Sudarikov, Shigin, Kurochkin, Lomakin, Stenko and Yurlova2002), higher infection rates in larger frogs could be attained by an increase of prey intake volumes over the ontogeny, while in A. alata mesocercaria, a similar trend could be caused by a larger frog's ability to consume infected prey – for example, tadpoles (Pearson, Reference Pearson1956) – and subsequent accumulation of a long-living parasite stage (Möhl et al., Reference Möhl, Grosse, Hamedy, Wüste, Kabelitz and Lücker2009).

In amphibians, disease or infection is usually accompanied by emaciation and weight loss (Bancila et al., Reference Bancila, Hartel, Plaiasu, Smets and Cogalniceanu2010). Diplostomid trematode (A. alata, S. strigis) larvae and gastrointestinal nematode infections were better correlated with host length than with weight, probably due to their adverse effect on host body condition (Hendrikx & Van Moppes, Reference Hendrikx and Van Moppes1983; Koprivnikar et al., Reference Koprivnikar, Marcogliese, Rohr, Orlofske, Raffel and Johnson2012; Svinin et al., Reference Svinin, Bashinskiy and Litvinchuk2020) and accompanying weight loss that increased data dispersion. A similar pattern was also observed in trematode species richness. Adult trematode infections, however, were better correlated with host weight. This could be explained by higher parasite intake rates with food by active and healthy hosts, and lower pathogenicity of the adult stages (Koprivnikar et al., Reference Koprivnikar, Marcogliese, Rohr, Orlofske, Raffel and Johnson2012) that did not significantly affect host body conditions.

Post-metamorphic amphibians are considered to have a generally low susceptibility to trematode cercaria infections compared to tadpoles (Koprivnikar et al., Reference Koprivnikar, Marcogliese, Rohr, Orlofske, Raffel and Johnson2012). However, with few exceptions (A. alata, D. spathacerum, O. ranae), larval trematodes in our study were less abundant in tadpoles, several diplostomid species were missing and larval trematodes, as a group, increased in larger hosts in both species richness and sheer abundances, indicating a substantial intake by post-metamorphic frogs. Their intake pathways were not always clear. Thus, we found a trend towards infection increase over host ontogeny in the echinostome, E. recurvatum metacercaria. Although echinostome infections are well studied in larval amphibians (e.g. Holland, Reference Holland2009; Orlofske et al., Reference Orlofske, Belden and Hopkins2013; Goren et al., Reference Goren, Routtu and Ben-Ami2014), this particular species was extremely rare in our tadpole samples and we did not find a description of its infection routes into post-metamorphic frogs. The typical second intermediate host for this species are regarded to be snails and not amphibians (Huffman & Fried, Reference Huffman and Fried2012). Larvae predilection sites in frogs in our study (fig. 6) may give some clues – for example, E. recurvatum metacercaria were located mainly around the eyes, which suggests that the main penetration route for the cercaria could be through the eye mucosa, while a significant proportion of metacercaria of some other taxa (Encyclometra colubrimurorum, P. cloacicola, Strigea spp.) were located in the walls of the mouth cavity and gastrointestinal tract. The absence of substantial infections of internal organs and better infection rate correlation with host weight in E. recurvatum suggests that this echinostome may have little effect on its host's health.

Fig. 6. Percentages of trematode larvae located in subcutaneous tissues and visual organs (shades of red), and in walls of gastrointestinal organs (shades of green) of Pelophylax spp. post-metamorphs.

Opposite trends with lower infection rates in larger hosts were found in several diplostomid (S. strigis, T. exavata) metacercaria infections. There is no good evidence for self-clearance from well-established diplostomid infections in post-metamorphic amphibians (e.g. Rohr et al., Reference Rohr, Raffel, Sessions, Heatwole and Wilkinson2009; Raffel et al., Reference Raffel, Lloyd-Smith, Sessions, Hudson and Rohr2011; Poulin & Lagrue, Reference Poulin and Lagrue2015), yet latter larval stages may eliminate plagiorchiid metacercaria due to some unknown mechanism (Holland, Reference Holland2009). Strigeid infections may cause amphibian population decline (Sinsch et al., Reference Sinsch, Kaschek and Wiebe2018), and lower infection rates in both diplostomids in larger frogs could be explained by a parasite-induced host mortality (Loot et al., Reference Loot, Lek, Dejean and Guegan2001). In our study, most T. excavata metacercaria were found in the brain and spinal cord (supplementary table S2), which may inhibit the host's physical reaction to threats and facilitate T. excavata transmission to its definitive host – the white stork (Ciconia ciconia) (Sitko et al., Reference Sitko, Faltýnková and Scholz2006; Girisgin et al., Reference Girisgin, Birlik, Senlik and Yildirimhan2017) – in that way, fitting the optimal virulence strategy (Cressler et al., Reference Cressler, McLeod, Rozins, Van Den Hoogen and Day2016).

Waterbody size did affect helminth abundances but not their species richness in our study. The nematode O. filiformis is also common in sand lizards (Lacerta agilis) from dry terrestrial habitats (Kirillova et al., Reference Kirillova, Kirillov, Shchenkov and Chikhlyaev2020). It infects hosts through ingestion of its larvae with terrestrial food (Chikhlyaev et al., Reference Chikhlyaev, Ruchin and Fayzulin2019b) and its higher infection rates in frogs from smaller waterbodies could be caused by higher proportions of terrestrial prey items in such habitats (relevant studies on waterbody-size-specificity of their diets are absent). Trematode ontogenetic stages had opposite trends to waterbody size. Overall adult trematode infections and also infections of adults of two plagiorchiid species (P. claviger, P. medians) were higher in larger waterbodies, which could be caused by richer arthropod food resources (Heino, Reference Heino2009) and possibly higher intake rates of occasional aquatic prey by mainly onshore-feeding Pelophylax spp. frogs. Both these plagiorchiids are intermediate-host generalists, having metacercariae in an extremely wide range of aquatic arthropods, with frogs being definitive hosts (Sudarikov et al., Reference Sudarikov, Shigin, Kurochkin, Lomakin, Stenko and Yurlova2002). There are hemimetabolous insects (Plecoptera, Ephemeroptera, Odonata), which pass metacercariae into the imago stage (Mariluan et al., Reference Mariluan, Viozzi and Albarino2012) and are potentially better vectors for trematode transfer to onshore-feeding hosts, but their imago stages are rare in Pelophylax spp. diets (Tyler, Reference Toledo and Fried1958; Balint et al., Reference Balint, Citrea, Memetea, Jurij and Condure2008; Paunovic et al., Reference Paunovic, Bjelic-Cabrilo and Simic2010). Interestingly, infections of several plagiorchiids (Gorgodera varsoviensis, S. similis), having a second intermediate stage mainly in hemimetabolous Odonata (Sudarikov et al., Reference Sudarikov, Shigin, Kurochkin, Lomakin, Stenko and Yurlova2002), had no correlation with the waterbody area in our study.

First intermediate hosts for studied trematode communities are always gastropod snails, from which emerge free-swimming stages aiming to invade the next host (Galaktionov & Dobrovolskij, Reference Galaktionov and Dobrovolskij2003). In water they may reach a biomass of more than 150 mg per m3 (Preston et al., Reference Preston, Orlofske, Lambden and Johnson2013). The smallest waterbodies of our study had an area of 0.01 ha, which is the pond size with the highest larval amphibian densities (Semlitsch et al., Reference Semlitsch, Peterman, Anderson, Drake and Ousterhout2015). Elevated host densities result in increased cercariae and metacercariae prevalence in snails (Zimmermann et al., Reference Zell, Rohner, Thürig and Stadelmann2016), and high tadpole and frog densities are known to be positive for trematodes (Hartson et al., Reference Hartson, Orlofske, Melin, Dillon and Johnson2011). Hence, higher levels of larval trematode infections in amphibians from the smaller waterbodies of our study could be caused by higher host (snail, tadpole or both) densities that increase chances for short-living, free-moving miracidium and cercaria stages to meet their hosts. Trematode, especially diplostomid, larval infections may increase amphibian mortality (Sinsch et al., Reference Sinsch, Kaschek and Wiebe2018) and the use of small waterbodies by amphibians could be a trade-off between benefits from getting a breeding site free from fish predators that eradicate their larval stages (Hartel et al., Reference Hartel, Nemes, Cogălniceanu, Öllerer, Schweiger, Moga and Demeter2007; Kloskowski, Reference Kloskowski2011) and elevated risks of diseases caused by parasite infections.

Supplementary material

To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022149X2100047X

Financial support

This research was partly supported by the project ‘Pond aquaculture production and ecosystem service innovative research with modelling of the climate impact to tackle horizontal challenges and improve aquaculture sustainability governance in Latvia’ (lzp-2020/2-0070) financed by Fundamental and Applied Research Projects (FLPP). It was also partly supported by the Joint LatvianUkrainian project ‘The ecological and biological triggers of expansion of the invasive fish, Chinese sleeper (Perccottus glenii), in Eastern Europe’ co-financed by the State Education Development Agency of Latvia (project number LV-UA/2018/6) and the Ministry of Science and Education of Ukraine (project number 0119U101806).

Conflicts of interest

None.

Ethical standards

Special permission for the collecting, euthanasia and study for scientific purpose was approved by the Latvian authority Nature Conservation Agency of Latvia (permission numbers 26/2017-E, 14/2018-E, 21/2019-E and 19/2020-E).

References

Abdel-Gaber, R, Maher, S, Kamel, R and El Deeb, N (2017) Supplementary studies of Pleurogenoides medians (Digenea: Lecithodendriidae) infecting the marsh frog Rana ridibunda (Amphibia: Ranidae) in Egypt. Beni-Suef University Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences 6, 154159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aho, JM (1990) Helminth communities of amphibians and reptiles: comparative approaches to understanding patterns and processes. pp. 157195 in Esch, GW, Bush, AO and Aho, JM (Eds) Parasite communities: patterns and processes. Dordrecht, Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreas, K (2006) Helminthen einheimischer Froschlurche. 123 pp. Dissertation, The Free University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
Arnold, EN and Ovenden, DW (2002) Reptiles and amphibians of Europe. 288 pp. Princeton and Oxford, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Avery, RA (1971) Helminth parasite populations in newts and their tadpoles. Freshwater Biology 1, 113119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balint, N, Citrea, L, Memetea, A, Jurij, N and Condure, N (2008) Feeding ecology of the Pelophylax ridibundus (Anura, ranidae) in Dobromir. Romania. Biharean Biologist 2, 2737.Google Scholar
Bancila, RI, Hartel, T, Plaiasu, R, Smets, J and Cogalniceanu, D (2010) Comparing three body condition indices in amphibians: a case study of yellowbellied toad Bombina variegata. Amphibia-Reptilia 31, 558562.Google Scholar
Bentley, PJ and Yorio, T (1976) The passive permeability of the skin of anuran amphibia: a comparison of frogs (Rana pipiens) and toads (Bufo marinus). The Journal of Physiology 261, 603615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biggs, J, von Fumetti, S and Kelly-Quinn, M (2016) The importance of small waterbodies for biodiversity and ecosystem services: implications for policy makers. Hydrobiologia 793, 339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bjelić-Čabrilo, O, Popović, E and Paunovic, A (2009) Helminthofauna of Pelophylax kl. esculentus (Linne, 1758) from Petrovaradinski Rit marsh (Serbia). Helminthologia 46, 107111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burakova, AV and Baytimirova, EA (2017) The species composition of parasites of Bufo bufo (Amphibia: Bufonidae) in the surrounding area of Visimsky State Nature Biosphere Reserve. Russian Journal of Parasitology 42, 320324 (in Russian).Google Scholar
Burakova, AV and Vershinin, VL (2016) Analysis of parasitofauna in syntopically cohabitating representatives of Anura. Вестник СПбГУ 3, 3136 (in Russian).Google Scholar
Bursey, CR and Dewolf, WF (1998) Helminths of the frogs, Rana catesbeiana, Rana clamitans, and Rana palustris, from Coshocton county, Ohio. Ohio Journal of Science 98(2), 2829.Google Scholar
Bush, A, Lafferty, KD, Lotz, JM and Shostak, AW (1997) Parasitology meets ecology on its own terms: Margolis et al. Revisited. Journal of Parasitology 83, 575583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campião, KM, Ribas, A, Morais, DH, Silva, R and Tavares, LER (2015) How many parasites species a frog might have? Determinants of parasite diversity in South American anurans. PLoS One 10, e0140577.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campião, KM, Ribas, ACA, Silva, ICO, Dalazen, GT and Tavares, LER (2017) Anuran helminth communities from contrasting nature reserve and pasture sites in the Pantanal wetland, Brazil. Journal of Helminthology 91, 9196.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Čeirāns, A, Pupina, A and Pupins, M (2020) A new method for the estimation of minimum adult frog density from a large-scale audial survey. Scientific Reports 10, 8627.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chao, A, Chazdon, RL, Colwell, RK and Shen, TJ (2006) Abundance-based similarity indices and their estimation when there are unseen species in samples. Biometrics 62, 361371.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chikhlyaev, IV and Ruchin, AB (2014) The helminth fauna study of European common brown frog (Rana temporaria Linnaeus, 1758) in the Volga basin. Acta Parasitologica 59, 459471.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chikhlyaev, IV and Ruchin, AB (2020) Helminths of amphibians (Amphibia) in beaver ponds in the central Russia. Aquaculture, Aquarium, Conservation & Legislation – International Journal of the Bioflux Society 13, 38103821.Google Scholar
Chikhlyaev, IV and Ruchin, AB (2021) An overview of the helminths of moor frog Rana arvalis Nilsson, 1842 (Amphibia: Anura) in the Volga basin. Diversity 13, 61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chikhlyaev, IV, Kirillova, NY and Kirillov, AA (2018a) Ecological analysis of trematodes (Trematoda) of marsh frog Pelophylax ridibundus (Ranidae, Anura) from various habitats of the national park “Samarskaya Luka” (Russia). Nature Conservation Research. Заповедная наука 3, 3650 (in Russian).Google Scholar
Chikhlyaev, IV, Ruchin, AB and Fayzulin, AI (2018b) An overview of the trematodes fauna of pool frog Pelophylax lessonae (Camerano, 1882) in the Volga basin, Russia: 1. Adult stages. Nusantara Bioscience 10, 256262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chikhlyaev, IV, Ruchin, AB and Fayzulin, AI (2019a) An overview of the trematodes fauna of the pool frog Pelophylax lessonae (Camerano, 1882) in the Volga basin, Russia: 2. Larval stages. Nusantara Bioscience 11, 106111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chikhlyaev, IV, Ruchin, AB and Fayzulin, AI (2019b) Parasitic nematodes of pool frog (Pelophylax lessonae) in the Volga basin. Revista MVZ Cordoba 24, 73147321.Google Scholar
Chikhlyaev, IV, Ruchin, AB and Kirillov, AA (2020) Ecological analysis of the helminth fauna in Bufo bufo (Amphibia: Anura) from various habitats. Nature Conservation Research. Заповедная наука 5, 110.Google Scholar
Cohen, MP and Alford, RA (1996) Factors affecting diurnal shelter use by the cane toad, Bufo marinus. Herpetologica 52, 172181.Google Scholar
Coleman, DC and Wall, DH (2015) Chapter 5 – soil fauna: occurrence, biodiversity, and roles in ecosystem function. pp. 111149 in Paul, EA (Ed.) Soil microbiology, ecology and biochemistry. 4th edn. Amsterdam, Elsevier, Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cressler, CE, McLeod, DV, Rozins, C, Van Den Hoogen, J and Day, T (2016) The adaptive evolution of virulence: a review of theoretical predictions and empirical tests. Parasitology 143, 915930.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dallas, TA, Laine, A-L and Ovaskainen, O (2019) Detecting parasite associations within multi-species host and parasite communities. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, Biological Sciences 286, 20191109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Draghi, R, Drago, FB, Saibene, PE and Agostini, MG (2020) Helminth communities from amphibians inhabiting agroecosystems in the Pampean region (Argentina). Revue Suisse de Zoologie 127, 261274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drobenkov, S (2015) Reproductive ecology and population dynamics of the natterjack toad, Epidalea calamita, in agricultural landscape of Belarus. Herpetological Facts Journal 2, 1524.Google Scholar
Duellman, WE and Trueb, L (1994) Biology of amphibians. 670 pp. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Galaktionov, KV and Dobrovolskij, AA (2003) The biology and evolution of trematodes: an essay on the biology, morphology, life cycles, transmissions, and evolution of digenetic trematodes. 592 pp. Dordrecht, Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gems, D (2002) Ageing. pp. 801880 in Lee, DL (Ed.) The biology of nematodes. London, New York, Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Girisgin, AO, Birlik, S, Senlik, B and Yildirimhan, HS (2017) Intestinal helminths of the white stork (Ciconia ciconia Linnaeus 1758) from an inter-route site in Turkey. Acta Veterinaria Hungarica 65, 221233.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goren, L, Routtu, J and Ben-Ami, F (2014) Trematode-associated morbidity and mortality of tadpoles in Israel. Parasitology Research 113, 38333841.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guillen, J (2012) FELASA guidelines and recommendations. Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science 51, 311321.Google ScholarPubMed
Hamann, MI, González, CE and Kehr, AI (2006a) Helminth community structure of the oven frog Leptodactylus latinasus (Anura, Leptodactylidae) from Corrientes, Argentina. Acta Parasitologica 51, 294299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamann, MI, González, CE and Kehr, AI (2006b) Species affinity and infracommunity ordination of helminths of Leptodactylus chaquensis (Anura: Leptodactylidae) in two contrasting environments from northeastern Argentina. Journal of Parasitology 92, 11711179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamann, MI, Kehr, AI and González, CE (2010) Helminth community structure of Scinax nasicus (Anura: Hylidae) from a south American subtropical area. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 93, 7182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamann, MI, Kehr, AI and González, CE (2013a) Helminth communities in the burrowing toad, Rhinella fernandezae, from northeastern Argentina. Biologia 68, 11551162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamann, MI, Kehr, AI and González, CE (2013b) Biodiversity of trematodes associated with amphibians from a variety of habitats in Corrientes province, Argentina. Journal of Helminthology 87, 286300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamann, MI, Kehr, AI and González, CE (2014) Helminth community structure in the Argentinean bufonid Melanophryniscus klappenbachi: importance of habitat use and season. Parasitology Research 113, 36393649.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamann, MI, González, CE and Fernández, MV (2020) Trematode parasites associated with amphibians from a rice field in the northeastern Argentina. Food Webs 22, e00139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartel, T, Nemes, S, Cogălniceanu, D, Öllerer, K, Schweiger, O, Moga, CI and Demeter, L (2007) The effect of fish and aquatic habitat complexity on amphibians. Hydrobiologia 583, 173182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartson, RB, Orlofske, SA, Melin, VE, Dillon, RT and Johnson, PTJ (2011) Land use and wetland spatial position jointly determine amphibian parasite communities. EcoHealth 8, 485500.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heino, L (2009) Biodiversity of aquatic insects: spatial gradients and environmental correlates of assemblage-level measures at large scales. Freshwater Reviews 2, 129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendrikx, WML and Van Moppes, MC (1983) Oswaldocruzia filiformis (Nematoda: Trichostrongylidae): morphology of developmental stages, parasitic development and some pathological aspects of the infection in amphibians. Parasitology Research 69, 523537.Google Scholar
Holland, MP (2009) Echinostome metacercariae cyst elimination in Rana clamitans (green frog) tadpoles is age-dependent. Journal of Parasitology 95, 281285.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horn, HS (1966) Measurement of “overlap” in comparative ecological studies. The American Naturalist 100, 419424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huffman, J and Fried, B (2012) The biology of Echinoparyphium (Trematoda, Echinostomatidae). Acta Parasitologica 57, 199210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, PTJ and Wilber, MQ (2017) Biological and statistical processes jointly drive population aggregation: using host–parasite interactions to understand Taylor's power law. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, Biological Sciences 284, 20171388.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, A, Bray, RA and Gibson, DI (Eds) (2005) Keys to the Trematoda. Volume II. 768 pp. London, The Natural History Museum, Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau International (CABI Publishing).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Justine, J-L, Briand, MJ and Bray, RA (2012) A quick and simple method, usable in the field, for collecting parasites in suitable condition for both morphological and molecular studies. Parasitology Research 111, 341351.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
King, KC, McLaughlin, JD, Gendron, AD, Pauli, BD, Giroux, I, Rondeau, B, Boily, M, Juneau, P and Marcogliese, DJ (2007) Impacts of agriculture on the parasite communities of northern leopard frogs (Rana pipiens) in southern Quebec, Canada. Parasitology 134, 20632080.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kirillova, NY, Kirillov, AA, Shchenkov, SV and Chikhlyaev, IV (2020) Oswaldocruzia filiformis sensu lato (Nematoda: Molineidae) from amphibians and reptiles in European Russia: morphological and molecular data. Nature Conservation Research. Заповедная наука 5, 4156.Google Scholar
Kloskowski, J (2011) Consequences of the size structure of fish populations for their effects on a generalist avian predator. Oecologia 166, 517530.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koprivnikar, J and Redfern, JC (2012) Agricultural effects on amphibian parasitism: importance of general habitat preturbations and parasite life cycles. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 48, 925936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koprivnikar, J, Baker, RL and Forbes, MR (2006) Environmental factors influencing trematode prevalence in grey tree frog (Hyla versicolor) tadpoles in southern Ontario. Journal of Parasitology 92, 9971001.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koprivnikar, J, Marcogliese, DJ, Rohr, JR, Orlofske, SA, Raffel, TR and Johnson, PTJ (2012) Macroparasite infections of amphibians: what can they tell us? EcoHealth 9, 342360.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuzmin, Y, Dmytrieva, I, Marushchak, O, Morozov-Leonov, S, Oskyrko, O and Nekrasova, O (2020) Helminth species and infracommunities in frogs Pelophylax ridibundus and P. esculentus (Amphibia: Ranidae) in northern Ukraine. Acta Parasitologica 65, 341353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loot, G, Lek, S, Dejean, J and Guegan, JF (2001) Parasite-induced mortality in three host populations of the roach Rutilus rutilus (L.) by the tapeworm Ligula intestinalis (L.). Annales de Limnologie 37, 151159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maceda-Veiga, A, Green, AJ, Poulin, R and Lagrue, C (2016) Body condition peaks at intermediate parasite loads in the common bully Gobiomorphus cotidianus. PLoS One 11, e0168992.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Magurran, A (2004) Measuring biological diversity. 264 pp. Oxford, Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Mariluan, GD, Viozzi, GP and Albarino, RJ (2012) Trematodes and nematodes parasitizing the benthic insect community of an Andean Patagonian stream, with emphasis on plagiorchiid metacercariae. Invertebrate Biology 131, 285293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, M, Hawlitschek, O, Zahn, A and Glaw, F (2013) Composition of twenty Green Frog populations (Pelophylax) across Bavaria, Germany. Salamandra 49, 3144.Google Scholar
Menard, S (2000) Coefficients of determination for multiple logistic regression analysis. The American Statistician 54, 1724.Google Scholar
Mihaljevic, JR, Hoye, BJ and Johnson, PTJ (2018) Parasite metacommunities: evaluating the roles of host community composition and environmental gradients in structuring symbiont communities within amphibians. Journal of Animal Ecology 87, 354368.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Möhl, K, Grosse, K, Hamedy, A, Wüste, T, Kabelitz, P and Lücker, E (2009) Biology of Alaria spp. and human exposition risk to Alaria mesocercariae – a review. Parasitology Research 105, 115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Okulewicz, A, Hildebrand, J, Łysowski, R, Bunkovska, K and Perec-Matysiak, A (2014) Helminth communities of green and brown frogs from Poland (lower Silesia region). Journal of Herpetology 48, 3437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orlofske, SA, Belden, LK and Hopkins, WA (2013) Larval wood frog (Rana [= Lithobates] sylvatica) development and physiology following infection with the trematode parasite, Echinostoma trivolvis. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology - Part A: Molecular & Integrative Physiology 164, 529536.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ozoliņa, Z, Deksne, G, Pupins, M, Gravele, E, Gavarane, I and Kirjušina, M (2021) Alaria alata mesocercariae prevalence and predilection sites in amphibians in Latvia. Parasitology Research 120, 145152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patrelle, C, Portier, J, Jouet, D, Delorme, D and Ferte, H (2015) Prevalence and intensity of Alaria alata (Goeze, 1792) in water frogs and brown frogs in natural conditions. Parasitology Research 114, 44054412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paunovic, A, Bjelic-Cabrilo, O and Simic, S (2010) The diet of water frogs (Pelophylax esculentus “complex”) from the Petrovaradinski Rit marsh (Serbia). Archives of Biological Sciences 62, 797806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, JC (1956) Studies on the life cycles and morphology of the larval stages of Alaria arisaemoides Augustine and Uribe, 1927 and Alaria canis LaRue and Fallis, 1936 (Trematoda: Diplostomidae). Canadian Journal of Zoology 34, 295387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pielou, EC (1966) The measurement of diversity in different types of biological collections. Journal of Theoretical Biology 13, 131144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popiolek, M, Rozenblut-Koscisty, B, Kot, M, Nosal, W and Ogielska, M (2011) Endoparasitic helminths of water frog complex in Poland: do differences exist between the parental species Pelophylax ridibundus and Pelophylax lessonae, and their natural hybrid Pelophylax esculentus? Helminthologia 48, 108115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portela, A, Dos Santos, T and Dos Anjos, L (2020) Changes in land use affect anuran helminths in the South Brazilian grasslands. Journal of Helminthology 94, e206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poulin, R (2007) Are there general laws in parasite ecology? Parasitology 134, 763777.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poulin, R and Lagrue, C (2015) The ups and downs of life: population expansion and bottlenecks of helminth parasites through their complex life cycle. Parasitology 142, 19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poulin, R, Luque, JL, Guilhaumon, F and Mouillot, D (2008) Species abundance distributions and numerical dominance in gastrointestinal helminth communities of fish hosts. Journal of Helminthology 82, 193202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Preston, DL, Orlofske, SA, Lambden, JP and Johnson, PTJ (2013) Biomass and productivity of trematode parasites in pond ecosystems. Journal of Animal Ecology 82, 509517.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raffel, TR, Lloyd-Smith, JO, Sessions, SK, Hudson, PJ and Rohr, JR (2011) Does the early frog catch the worm? Disentangling potential drivers of a parasite age-intensity relationship in tadpoles. Oecologia 165, 10311042.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rhoden, HR and Bolek, MG (2015) Helminth community structure in tadpoles of northern leopard frogs (Rana pipiens) and Woodhouse's toads (Bufo woodhousii) from Nebraska. Parasitology Research 114, 46854692.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rohr, JR, Raffel, TR and Sessions, SK (2009) Digenetic trematodes and their relationship to amphibian declines and deformities. pp. 30673088 in Heatwole, H and Wilkinson, JW (Eds) Amphibian biology. Vol. 8. Amphibian decline: diseases, parasites, maladies, and pollution. Chipping Norton, Surrey Beatty & Sons.Google Scholar
Ryzhikov, KM, Sharpilo, VP and Shevechenko, NN (1980) Helminths of amphibians of the fauna of the USSR. 278 pp. Moscow, Izdatelstovo Nauka (Publishing Science) (in Russian).Google Scholar
Saad-Fares, A and Combes, C (1992) Abundance/host size relationship in a fish trematode community. Journal of Helminthology 66, 187192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sattaman, H (1990) Endohelminths of some amphibians from northern Greece (Trematoda, Acanthocephala, Nematoda; Amphibia: Triturus, Rana, Bombina). Herpetozoa 3, 6771.Google Scholar
Semlitsch, RD, Peterman, WE, Anderson, TL, Drake, DL and Ousterhout, BH (2015) Intermediate pond sizes contain the highest density, richness, and diversity of pond-breeding amphibians. PLoS One 10, e0123055.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shannon, CE and Weaver, W (1949) The mathematical theory of communication. 35 pp. Urbana, University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Shimalov, VV and Shimalov, VT (2001) Helminth fauna of toads in Belorussian Polesie. Parasitology Research 87, 8484.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shimalov, VV, Shimalov, VT and Shimalov, AV (2001) Helminth fauna of newts in Belorussian Polesie. Parasitology Research 87, 356356.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sinsch, U, Kaschek, J and Wiebe, J (2018) Heavy metacercariae infestation (Parastrigea robusta) promotes the decline of a smooth newt population (Lissotriton vulgaris). Salamandra 54, 210221.Google Scholar
Sinsch, U, Heneberg, P, Těšínský, M, Balczun, C and Scheid, P (2019) Helminth endoparasites of the smooth newt Lissotriton vulgaris: linking morphological identification and molecular data. Journal of Helminthology 93, 332341.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sitko, J, Faltýnková, A and Scholz, T (2006) Checklist of the trematodes (Digenea) of birds of the Czech and Slovak Republics. 111 pp. Praha, Academia.Google Scholar
Skryabin, KI (1928) The method of complete helminthological dissections of vertebrates including humans. 45 pp. Moscow, Moscow State Univ. Press (in Russian).Google Scholar
Smyth, JD and Smyth, MM (1980) Frogs as host-parasite systems I: an introduction to parasitology through the parasites of Rana temporaria, R. esculenta and R. Pipiens. 112 pp. London, Macmillan Publishers Limited.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Speybroeck, J, Beukema, W, Bok, B, Van, VJ and Velikov, I (2016) Field guide to the amphibians and reptiles of Britain and Europe. 432 pp. London, New York, Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.Google Scholar
Spieler, M and Schierenberg, E (1995) On the development of the alternating free-living and parasitic generations of the nematode Rhabdias bufonis. Invertebrate Reproduction & Development 28, 193203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprinthall, RC (2011) Basic statistical analysis. 9th edn. 659 pp. Harlow, Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Sudarikov, V, Shigin, A, Kurochkin, Y, Lomakin, V, Stenko, R and Yurlova, N (2002) Metacercariae of trematodes-parasites of freshwater aquatic organisms in central Russia. 298 pp. Moscow, Nauka (in Russian).Google Scholar
Svinin, AO, Bashinskiy, IV, Litvinchuk, SN, et al. (2020) Strigea robusta causes polydactyly and severe forms of Rostand's anomaly P in water frogs. Parasites & Vectors 13, 381.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thomas, F, Poulin, R, de Meeüs, T, Guégan, J-F and Renaud, F (1999) Parasites and ecosystem engineering: what roles could they play? Oikos 84, 167171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tinsley, R, Rose Vineer, H, Grainger-Wood, R and Morgan, E (2020) Heterogeneity in helminth infections: factors influencing aggregation in a simple host–parasite system. Parasitology 147, 6577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toledo, R and Fried, B (Eds) (2019) Digenic trematodes. 2nd edn. 487 pp. Cham, Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toledo, GM, Schwartz, HO, Nomura, HAQ, Aguiar, A, Velota, RAMV, da Silva, RJ and Anjos, LA (2017) Helminth community structure of 13 species of anurans from Atlantic rainforest remnants, Brazil. Journal of Helminthology 92, 438444.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tyler, MJ (1958) On the diet and feeding habits of the edible frog (Rana esculenta Linnaeus). Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 131, 583595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vences, M, Galan, P, Palanca, A, Vieites, DR, Ni Eto, S and Rey, J (2000) Summer microhabitat use and diel activity cycles in a high altitude Pyrenean population of Rana temporaria. Herpetological Journal 10, 4956.Google Scholar
Vershinin, VL, Burakova, AV and Vershinina, SD (2017) Comparative analysis of the parasitocenoses of amphibians from the family Ranidae (Anura) in the urbanization gradient. Russian Journal of Ecology 48, 466475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, S, Harlow, LI, Puggioni, G and Redding, CA (2017) A comparison of different methods of zero-inflated data analysis and an application in health surveys. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods 16, 518543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zargar, UR, Yousuf, AR, Chishti, MZ, Ahmed, F, Bashir, H and Ahmed, F (2011) Effects of water quality and trophic status on helminth infections in the cyprinid fish, Schizothorax Niger Heckel, 1838 from three lakes in the Kashmir Himalayas. Journal of Helminthology 86, 7076.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zell, J, Rohner, B, Thürig, E and Stadelmann, G (2019) Modeling ingrowth for empirical forest prediction systems. Forest Ecology and Management 433, 771779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmermann, MR, Luth, KE and Esch, GW (2016) Transmission pattern differences of miracidia and cercariae larval stages of digenetic trematode parasites. Acta Parasitologica 61, 680688.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Location of sampled sites.

Figure 1

Table 1. Helminth infracommunities in amphibians from Latvia: abundance (A; average for all samples ± standard deviation), prevalence (P, %), species richness (S; total and average for infected samples ± standard deviation), diversity (H′) and evenness (J′) in major taxonomic groups and life stages.

Figure 2

Table 2. Dominance index for helminth taxa in post-metamorphic (PM) and larval (L) amphibian hosts.

Figure 3

Table 3. Infracommunity comparisons between hosts by Sorensen index for qualitative (upper-right section) and MorisitaHorn index for quantitative (lower-left section) similarities (R. arvalis skipped due to small sample size).

Figure 4

Fig. 2. LDA chart for helminth infracommunities in post-metamorphic (PM) and larval (L) hosts. Numbers denoting the host taxa are placed on group means; hosts with less than three samples have no convex hulls in the chart. Axis 1 can be interpreted as an aquatic–terrestrial habitat gradient, while axis 2 separates hosts in the aquatic habitat.

Figure 5

Fig. 3. The strengths of species associations within helminth infra-communities given as the summations of the statistically significant (P < 0.05) tau-b statistics in the Kendall's rank correlation matrix (number of associations in parentheses).

Figure 6

Table 4. Summary statistics for zero-inflated Poisson regression (ZIP) and zero-inflated negative binomial regression (ZINB) models for helminth abundance (A) or species richness (S) relationships with host length and in post-metamorphic amphibian hosts.

Figure 7

Table 5. Comparison of goodness of fit and dispersion in zero-inflated Poisson regression (ZIP) models for helminth abundances (A) or species richness (S) relationships with host length vs. host weight.

Figure 8

Table 6. Summary statistics for zero-inflated Poisson regression (ZIP) and zero-inflated negative binomial regression (ZINB) models for helminth abundance relationships with waterbody area in semi-aquatic and aquatic amphibian hosts.

Figure 9

Fig. 4. Structure of helminth infracommunities in amphibian hosts from Latvia (R. arvalis omitted due to small sample size). Typical helminth species from each unit given on top of their columns. x-axis: first row = taxonomic group; second row = life stage in amphibians (trematodes; from aquatic habitat) or parasite larval habitat (nematodes); third row = other hosts (trematodes) or location in hosts (nematodes). Abbreviations: AQUA, aquatic; OPT, Odonata, Plecoptera, Ephemeroptera, Trichoptera; Gen arthr, wide range of arthropod hosts.

Figure 10

Fig. 5. Prevalence (P, %; dashed line) and infection intensities (I, aver; columns) in two dominant trematode species larval stages over water frog (Pelophylax spp.) host ontogeny. x-axis = ontogenic stage and post-metamorphs’ size class; left y-axis = prevalence; right y-axis = infection intensity (data from two A. alata-infected and five O. ranae-infected sites). Abbreviations: msc, mesocercariae; mtc, metacercariae; aver, average.

Figure 11

Fig. 6. Percentages of trematode larvae located in subcutaneous tissues and visual organs (shades of red), and in walls of gastrointestinal organs (shades of green) of Pelophylax spp. post-metamorphs.

Supplementary material: File

Čeirāns et al. supplementary material

Tables S1-S6

Download Čeirāns et al. supplementary material(File)
File 54.3 KB