Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T12:42:14.065Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Patterns of macroparasite aggregation in wildlife host populations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 1998

D. J. SHAW
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK
B. T. GRENFELL
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK
A. P. DOBSON
Affiliation:
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Eno Hall, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, USA

Abstract

Frequency distributions from 49 published wildlife host–macroparasite systems were analysed by maximum likelihood for goodness of fit to the negative binomial distribution. In 45 of the 49 (90%) data-sets, the negative binomial distribution provided a statistically satisfactory fit. In the other 4 data-sets the negative binomial distribution still provided a better fit than the Poisson distribution, and only 1 of the data-sets fitted the Poisson distribution. The degree of aggregation was large, with 43 of the 49 data-sets having an estimated k of less than 1. From these 49 data-sets, 22 subsets of host data were available (i.e. host data could be divided by either host sex, age, where or when hosts were sampled). In 11 of these 22 subsets there was significant variation in the degree of aggregation between host subsets of the same host–parasite system. A common k estimate was always larger than that obtained with all the host data considered together. These results indicate that lumping host data can hide important variations in aggregation between hosts and can exaggerate the true degree of aggregation. Wherever possible common k estimates should be used to estimate the degree of aggregation. In addition, significant differences in the degree of aggregation between subgroups of host data, were generally associated with significant differences in both mean parasite burdens and the prevalence of infection.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
1998 Cambridge University Press

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.)