Transmission networks and ectoparasite mite burdens in Oecomys paricola (Rodentia: Cricetidae)

Abstract

The host contact network structure results from the movement and behaviour of hosts (e.g. degree of sociability; vagility and greater or lesser fidelity of shelters), which can generate heterogeneity in the transmission of parasites and influence the parasitic burden of individual hosts. In the current study, we tested the hypothesis that the burdens of Gigantolaelaps oudemansi mites are related to the characteristics of the transmission networks of individuals of Oecomys paricola, a solitary rodent. The study was carried out in a savannah habitat in north-eastern Brazil. In the dry season, the rodent network presented sub-groups of rodent individuals interacting with each other, whereas in the wet season, no modules were formed in the network. Mite burden was positively related to the number of connections that an individual host had with other host individuals in the dry season. The pairwise absolute difference between the mean mite burdens among individual rodents was negatively correlated with the similarities of node interactions. No relationships were observed during the wet season. There was a higher heterogeneity of mite burden among hosts in the dry season compare to that in the wet season. In solitary species, spatial organization may show seasonal variation, causing a change in the opportunities of host contacts, thereby influencing the transmission and dispersion of their ectoparasite burdens.

Phylogeography of the parasitic mite Laelaps agilis in Western Palearctic shows lineages lacking host specificity but possessing different demographic histories

“…A growing number of studies have focused on the phylogeography and population genetic relationships of rodent hosts and their associated ectoparasites showing that factors such as host switching [ 8 – 10 ], social structure of the hosts [ 11 – 13 ], and the closeness of the relationship between the host and its parasite (e.g. host specificity, [ 14 – 16 ]) determine the structure of parasitic populations.…”

From trees to fleas: masting indirectly affects flea abundance on a rodent host

“…What could be the mechanism of non-linear changes in flea abundance? An increase in host density leads to increased contact rates among individuals, and higher probability of parasite transmission (Côté & Poulin 1995;Sih et al 2018;Fernandes et al 2021). In our study system, the potential for higher contact rates at high host densities is indicated by increased home range overlap that occurs in yellow-necked mice after mast years (Bogdziewicz et al 2016c).…”

“…2018; Fernandes et al. 2021). In our study system, the potential for higher contact rates at high host densities is indicated by increased home range overlap that occurs in yellow‐necked mice after mast years (Bogdziewicz et al.…”

Host sweet host: Rodent communities support similar ectoparasite diversity regardless of anthropogenic disturbance

“…Although it is generally accepted that the potential transfer of ectoparasites from generalist rodents to humans and domesticated animals is greater than from specialist rodents given their more frequent interactions with human populations (Vargas‐Sandoval et al., 2014), there is a need to increase our understanding of the spatial dynamics of transmission from host to host. Higher densities of rodents mean closer spatial proximity between individuals, which could lead to host‐to‐host ectoparasite transmission (Fernandes et al., 2021; Webber et al., 2015). We propose that this could be tested through the spatial segregation patterns of rodents with and without ectoparasites.…”