Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T05:40:29.370Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Parasite–induced reduction in host survival and fecundity: the effect of the nematode Elaphostrongylus rangiferi on the snail intermediate host

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

Arne Skorping
Affiliation:
Department of Ecology, University of Tromsø, P.O. Box 3085, Guleng, N-9001 Tromsø, Norway

Summary

The effect of the protostrongylid nematode, Elaphostrongylus rangiferi, on the fecundity and survival of an intermediate snail host, Arianta arbustorum, was studied. Over an experimental period of 12 weeks, infected snails had a significantly lower egg production than uninfected control snails. No significant difference in survival was found between infected and uninfected adult snails. Infected juvenile snails showed a consistent decrease in survival with increasing mean density of parasites. A linear relationship was found between snail instantaneous death rate over a 28–day interval and the mean number of parasites/snail. When calculated for 4–day intervals, the instantaneous death rate was highest between 8 and 12 days post–infection. It is concluded that the most pathogenic phase of this parasite is during the first moult.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

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

Anderson, R. M. & May, R. M. (1978). Regulation and stability of host–parasite population interactions. I. Regulatory process. Journal of Animal Ecology 47, 219–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breslow, N. (1970). A generalized Kruskall–Wallis test for comparing k samples subject to unequal patterns of censorship. Biometrika 57, 579–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cabaret, J. & Dakkak, A. (1979). Infestation expérimental de Cochlicella ventricosa (Draparnaud, 1801) par des larves L1 de Protostrongylides. Annales de Parasitologie Humaine et Comparée 54, 5764.Google Scholar
Erasmus, D. A. (1972). The Biology of Trematodes. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Gerichter, CH. B. (1948). Observations on the life history of lung nematodes using snails as intermediate hosts. American Journal of Veterinary Research 9, 109–12.Google Scholar
Halvorsen, O. & Skorping, A. (1982). The influence of temperature on growth and development of the nematode Elaphostrongylus rangiferi in the gastropods Arianta arbustorum and Econulus fulvus. Oikos 38, 285–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keymer, A. E. (1980). The influence of Hymenolepis diminuta on the survival and fecundity of the intermediate host, Tribolium confusum. Parasitology 81, 405–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
May, R. M. & Anderson, R. M. (1978). Regulation and stability of host–parasite population interactions. II. Destabilizing processes. Journal of Animal Ecology 47, 249–67.Google Scholar
Rose, J. H. (1957). Observations on the larval stages of Muellerius capillaris within the intermediate hosts Agriolimax agrestis and A. reticulatus. Journal of Helminthology 31, 116.Google Scholar
Skorping, A. (1982). Elaphostrongylus rangiferi: Influence of temperature, substrate and larval age on the infection rate in the intermediate snail host, Arianta arbustorum. Experimental Parasitology 54, 222–8.Google Scholar
Skorping, A. (1983). Elaphostrongylus rangiferi: in the snail intermediate host: localization and histopathology in Arianta arbustorum. Information 17, Institute of Parasitology, Abo Akademi, 88.Google Scholar
Skorping, A. (1984). Density–dependent effects in a parasitic nematode, Elaphostrongylus rangiferi, in the snail intermediate host. Oecologia (Berlin) 64, 3440.Google Scholar
Skorping, A. & Halvorsen, O. (1980). The susceptibility of terrestrial gastropods to experimental infection with Elaphostrongylus rangiferi Mitskevich (Nematoda: Metastrongyloidea). Zeitschrift für Parasitenkunde 62, 714.Google Scholar