2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.parint.2017.05.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Helminth infracommunity of the cane toad Rhinella marina (Anura: Bufonidae) within its native distribution range

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…(2013) reported a maximum intensity of 282 R. pseudosphaerocephala infecting invasive cane toads ( R. marina ) in Australia, Barton (1998) reported a maximum of 230 in the same host-parasite system, and Ruiz-Torres et al . (2017) reported a maximum of 647 R. fuelleborni in R. horribilis in Mexico. Prevalence of infection was also high compared with other studies on R. horribilis in Central America.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…(2013) reported a maximum intensity of 282 R. pseudosphaerocephala infecting invasive cane toads ( R. marina ) in Australia, Barton (1998) reported a maximum of 230 in the same host-parasite system, and Ruiz-Torres et al . (2017) reported a maximum of 647 R. fuelleborni in R. horribilis in Mexico. Prevalence of infection was also high compared with other studies on R. horribilis in Central America.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In Costa Rica (one site, n = 77 R. horribilis examined) prevalence was only 2.6% for both R. pseudosphaerocephala and R. alabialis ; mean intensity was also low: 4.5 and 1, respectively (Bursey and Brooks, 2010). In Mexico R. americanus infected 11.25% (two sites, n = 34 toads examined) of R. horribilis (Espinoza-Jiménez et al ., 2007) and prevalence of R. fuelleborni varied from 10% (one site, n = 40 R. horribilis examined, mean intensity = 1) (Espinola-Novelo and Guillen-Hernandez, 2008) to 53.3% (two sites, n = 34 R. horribilis examined) (Espinoza-Jiménez et al ., 2007) to a maximum of 66.6% (one site, n = 66 R. horribilis examined, mean intensity = 45.9) (Ruiz-Torres et al ., 2017). The latter study had comparable prevalence and intensity to the values that we report from Panama, though that study sampled only a single site.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Approximately, 402 species of amphibians have been described from Mexico (Frots, 2018;Parra-Olea et al, 2014), of which only 66 have been studied from a helminthological perspective; this number represents only about 18% of all Mexican species (Cabrera-Guzmán et al, 2021). Most of those works have focused mainly on taxonomic descriptions, lists of species, or population level studies (Cabrera-Guzmán, 2002;Cabrera-Guzmán et al, 2007Galicia-Guerrero et al, 2000;León-Règagnon et al, 2005;Velázquez-Urrieta & León-Règagnon, 2018), and only a few reports of the ecological structure of helminth communities (Adán-Torres et al, 2018;Espínola-Novelo et al, 2017;Goldberg et al, 2001;Mata-López et al, 2013;Paredes-Calderón et al, 2004;Ruiz-Torres et al, 2017;Zelmer et al, 2004). The only helminthological studies of amphibians from Hidalgo state are the helminth fauna of Ambystoma velasci (Dugès, 1888), Lithobates spectabilis Hillis andFrost, 1985 andRhinella horribilis (Wiegmann, 1833) (Falcón-Ordaz et al, 2014Pulido-Flores et al, 2009;Rodríguez-Amador et al, 2013).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%