The performance of field sampling for parasite detection in a wild passerine

Abstract

Parasites can impact the behavior of animals and alter the interplay with ecological factors in their environment. Studying the effects that parasites have on animals thus requires accurate estimates of infections in individuals. However, quantifying parasites can be challenging due to several factors. Laboratory techniques, physiological fluctuations, methodological constraints, and environmental influences can introduce measurement errors, in particular when screening individuals in the wild. These issues are pervasive in ecological studies where it is common to sample study subjects only once. Such factors should be carefully considered when choosing a sampling strategy, yet presently there is little guidance covering the major sources of error. In this study, we estimate the reliability and sensitivity of different sampling practices at detecting two internal parasites— Serratospiculoides amaculata and Isospora sp.—in a model organism, the great tit Parus major . We combine field and captive sampling to assess whether individual parasite infection status and load can be estimated from single field samples, using different laboratory techniques—McMaster and mini‐FLOTAC. We test whether they vary in their performance, and quantify how sample processing affects parasite detection rates. We found that single field samples had elevated rates of false negatives. By contrast, samples collected from captivity over 24 h were highly reliable (few false negatives) and accurate (repeatable in the intensity of infection). In terms of methods, we found that the McMaster technique provided more repeatable estimates than the mini‐FLOTAC for S. amaculata eggs, and both techniques were largely equally suitable for Isospora oocysts. Our study shows that field samples are likely to be unreliable in accurately detecting the presence of parasites and, in particular, for estimating parasite loads in songbirds. We highlight important considerations for those designing host–parasite studies in captive or wild systems giving guidance that can help select suitable methods, minimize biases, and acknowledge possible limitations.

Challenges of copro‐parasitological surveys in wild Iberian ibex (Capra pyrenaica) populations addressed through a combination of molecular and statistical tools

“…(0.01) (Table 3 ). Broadly similar results were reported in studies comparing Mini‐FLOTAC, McMaster, and other coprological techniques in several animal species (Abdu et al, 2022 ; Alowanou et al, 2021 ; Lozano et al, 2021 ; Rinaldi et al, 2014 ; Silva et al, 2013 ). No single copro‐parasitological method performs best for every parasite group.…”

“…The diagnostic sensitivity of standard copro‐parasitological methods is unknown for many parasite–host systems. In this study, the combination of methodologies estimated the sensitivity of four qualitative coprological tests commonly employed in wildlife parasitological surveys (Abdu et al, 2022 ). Mini‐FLOTAC showed the highest estimated sensitivity for eimeriid coccidia (0.88), Willis flotation for gastrointestinal Strongylida (0.98), and both tests for Moniezia spp.…”

“…Another challenge that parasitological surveys face is the imperfect and often unknown performance of the diagnostic methods in each host and parasite species (Abdu et al, 2022;Lachish et al, 2012).…”

“…Another challenge that parasitological surveys face is the imperfect and often unknown performance of the diagnostic methods in each host and parasite species (Abdu et al, 2022 ; Lachish et al, 2012 ). In fact, the diagnostic sensitivity of standard copro‐parasitological methods is unknown for many parasite–host systems.…”

Epidemiology of protozoan and helminthic parasites in wild passerine birds of Britain and Ireland

“…Additionally, we only used morphological analysis to identify species, using a single detection technique. The detection of trematode and eimeriid species could have been improved through sedimentation with salt or sugar solutions and sporulation, respectively, and may explain our low rates of detection of these taxa (Lobos-Ovalle et al ., 2021 ; Abdu et al ., 2022 ). More sensitive identification techniques, such as polymerase chain reaction followed by sequencing, used alongside morphological analyses, would allow the identification of specific parasite strains to confirm whether cross-species parasite transmission may be occurring (Nadler and De León, 2011 ; Perkins et al ., 2011 ).…”