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 seve...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2022-08-01
|
| Series: | Ecology and Evolution |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.9242 |
| _version_ | 1797987411828932608 |
|---|---|
| author | Salamatu Abdu Michael Chimento Gustavo Alarcón‐Nieto Daniel Zúñiga Lucy M. Aplin Damien R. Farine Hanja B. Brandl |
| author_facet | Salamatu Abdu Michael Chimento Gustavo Alarcón‐Nieto Daniel Zúñiga Lucy M. Aplin Damien R. Farine Hanja B. Brandl |
| author_sort | Salamatu Abdu |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-11T07:47:10Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-632e9a0a96414edcaac1cbe18c3d0f0f |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2045-7758 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-11T07:47:10Z |
| publishDate | 2022-08-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Ecology and Evolution |
| spelling | doaj.art-632e9a0a96414edcaac1cbe18c3d0f0f2022-12-22T04:36:14ZengWileyEcology and Evolution2045-77582022-08-01128n/an/a10.1002/ece3.9242The performance of field sampling for parasite detection in a wild passerineSalamatu Abdu0Michael Chimento1Gustavo Alarcón‐Nieto2Daniel Zúñiga3Lucy M. Aplin4Damien R. Farine5Hanja B. Brandl6Department of Biology University of Konstanz Constance GermanyDepartment of Biology University of Konstanz Constance GermanyCognitive and Cultural Ecology Research Group Max Planck Institute of Animal Behavior Radolfzell GermanyDepartment of Biology University of Konstanz Constance GermanyCentre for the Advanced Study of Collective Behaviour Universität Konstanz Constance GermanyDepartment of Collective Behaviour Max Planck Institute of Animal Behavior Radolfzell GermanyDepartment of Collective Behaviour Max Planck Institute of Animal Behavior Radolfzell GermanyAbstract 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.https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.9242fecal egg countfield samplingMcMastermini‐FLOTACparasite infectionrepeatability |
| spellingShingle | Salamatu Abdu Michael Chimento Gustavo Alarcón‐Nieto Daniel Zúñiga Lucy M. Aplin Damien R. Farine Hanja B. Brandl The performance of field sampling for parasite detection in a wild passerine Ecology and Evolution fecal egg count field sampling McMaster mini‐FLOTAC parasite infection repeatability |
| title | The performance of field sampling for parasite detection in a wild passerine |
| title_full | The performance of field sampling for parasite detection in a wild passerine |
| title_fullStr | The performance of field sampling for parasite detection in a wild passerine |
| title_full_unstemmed | The performance of field sampling for parasite detection in a wild passerine |
| title_short | The performance of field sampling for parasite detection in a wild passerine |
| title_sort | performance of field sampling for parasite detection in a wild passerine |
| topic | fecal egg count field sampling McMaster mini‐FLOTAC parasite infection repeatability |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.9242 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT salamatuabdu theperformanceoffieldsamplingforparasitedetectioninawildpasserine AT michaelchimento theperformanceoffieldsamplingforparasitedetectioninawildpasserine AT gustavoalarconnieto theperformanceoffieldsamplingforparasitedetectioninawildpasserine AT danielzuniga theperformanceoffieldsamplingforparasitedetectioninawildpasserine AT lucymaplin theperformanceoffieldsamplingforparasitedetectioninawildpasserine AT damienrfarine theperformanceoffieldsamplingforparasitedetectioninawildpasserine AT hanjabbrandl theperformanceoffieldsamplingforparasitedetectioninawildpasserine AT salamatuabdu performanceoffieldsamplingforparasitedetectioninawildpasserine AT michaelchimento performanceoffieldsamplingforparasitedetectioninawildpasserine AT gustavoalarconnieto performanceoffieldsamplingforparasitedetectioninawildpasserine AT danielzuniga performanceoffieldsamplingforparasitedetectioninawildpasserine AT lucymaplin performanceoffieldsamplingforparasitedetectioninawildpasserine AT damienrfarine performanceoffieldsamplingforparasitedetectioninawildpasserine AT hanjabbrandl performanceoffieldsamplingforparasitedetectioninawildpasserine |