Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28128348›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2017

Population expansion and individual age affect endoparasite richness and diversity in a recolonising large carnivore population.

Ines Lesniak, Ilja Heckmann, Emanuel Heitlinger, Claudia A Szentiks, Carsten Nowak, Verena Harms, Anne Jarausch, Ilka Reinhardt, Gesa Kluth, Heribert Hofer and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. First record ofInternational journal for parasitology. Parasites and wildlife · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. High prevalence ofInternational journal for parasitology. Parasites and wildlife · 2025
    Article
  8. A cross-sectional study ofJournal of veterinary research · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Cestodes in Eurasian wolves (International journal for parasitology. Parasites and wildlife · 2025
    Article
  11. International journal for parasitology. Parasites and wildlife · 2024
    Review
  12. Article
  13. A walk on the wild side: A review of the epidemiology ofInternational journal for parasitology. Parasites and wildlife · 2023
    Review
  14. Identification and phylogenetic analysis ofInternational journal for parasitology. Parasites and wildlife · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. HighInternational journal for parasitology. Parasites and wildlife · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Ines LesniakLeibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Alfred-Kowalke-Straße 17, 10315 Berlin, Germany.
Ilja HeckmannLeibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Alfred-Kowalke-Straße 17, 10315 Berlin, Germany.
Emanuel HeitlingerLeibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Alfred-Kowalke-Straße 17, 10315 Berlin, Germany.
Claudia A SzentiksLeibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Alfred-Kowalke-Straße 17, 10315 Berlin, Germany.
Carsten NowakSenckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum Frankfurt, Clamecystrasse 12, 63571 Gelnhausen, Germany.
Verena HarmsSenckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum Frankfurt, Clamecystrasse 12, 63571 Gelnhausen, Germany.
Anne JarauschSenckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum Frankfurt, Clamecystrasse 12, 63571 Gelnhausen, Germany.
Ilka ReinhardtLUPUS Institute for Wolf Monitoring and Research in Germany, Dorfstraße 20, 02979 Spreewitz, Germany.
Gesa KluthLUPUS Institute for Wolf Monitoring and Research in Germany, Dorfstraße 20, 02979 Spreewitz, Germany.
Heribert HoferLeibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Alfred-Kowalke-Straße 17, 10315 Berlin, Germany.
Oliver KroneLeibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Alfred-Kowalke-Straße 17, 10315 Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The recent recolonisation of the Central European lowland (CEL) by the grey wolf (Canis lupus) provides an excellent opportunity to study the effect of founder events on endoparasite diversity. Which role do prey and predator populations play in the re-establishment of endoparasite life cycles? Which intrinsic and extrinsic factors control individual endoparasite diversity in an expanding host population? In 53 individually known CEL wolves sampled in Germany, we revealed a community of four cestode, eight nematode, one trematode and 12 potential Sarcocystis species through molecular genetic techniques. Infections with zoonotic Echinococcus multilocularis, Trichinella britovi and T. spiralis occurred as single cases. Per capita endoparasite species richness and diversity significantly increased with population size and changed with age, whereas sex, microsatellite heterozygosity, and geographic origin had no effect. Tapeworm abundance (Taenia spp.) was significantly higher in immigrants than natives. Metacestode prevalence was slightly higher in ungulates from wolf territories than from control areas elsewhere. Even though alternative canid definitive hosts might also play a role within the investigated parasite life cycles, our findings indicate that (1) immigrated wolves increase parasite diversity in German packs, and (2) prevalence of wolf-associated parasites had declined during wolf absence and has now risen during recolonisation.

Indexed as

BiodiversityPopulation DensityAnimalsDNA, MitochondrialDNA, SatelliteGeographyHelminthsHost-Parasite InteractionsParasitesWolvesDNA, MitochondrialDNA, Satellite

Identifiers

PMID28128348
PMCPMC5269671

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.