Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T08:32:50.861Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The relative importance of bladder versus neotenic stages of Polystoma marmorati and P. umthakathi in natural frog populations in South Africa

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2009

L.H. Du Preez  and
D.J. Kok
L.H. Du Preez*
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology and Entomology, University of the Orange Free State, PO Box 339, Bloemfontein 9300, South Africa
D.J. Kok
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology and Entomology, University of the Orange Free State, PO Box 339, Bloemfontein 9300, South Africa
*
*Fax: (051) 4488711 E-mail: dupreezl@dre.nw.uovs.ac.za
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Infection levels of Polystoma marmorati (Polystomatidae: Monogenea) in the painted reed frog, Hyperolius marmoratus, and P. umthakathi in the kloof frog, Natalobatrachus bonebergi, were studied under natural conditions. The recorded prevalence for P. marmorati was generally high in adult frogs and low in tadpoles. In the case of P. umthakathi, the opposite was found with a low prevalence in adult frogs and a very high prevalence in tadpoles. Based on these findings, the hypothesis is presented that for P. marmorati the neotenic stage does not play a determining role and the population is maintained by bladder parasites. For P. umthakathi the neotenic stage appears to be more important than the bladder parasite and the population can probably survive without any significant contribution from bladder parasites.

Type
Research Papers
Information
Journal of Helminthology , Volume 72 , Issue 2 , June 1998 , pp. 117 - 121
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

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.)

References

Balinsky, B.I. (1969) The reproductive ecology of the amphibians of the Transvaal highveld. Zoologica Africana 4, 37–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandt, B.B. (1936) Parasites of certain North Carolina Salientia. Ecological Monographs 6, 491–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cable, J. & Tinsley, R.C. (1992) Microsporidian hyperparasites and bacteria associated with Pseudodiplorchis americanus (Monogenea: Polystomatidae). Canadian Journal of Zoology 70, 523–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Combes, C. (1968) Biologie, écologie des cycles et biogéographie de digènes et monogènis d'amphibiens dans l'est des Pyrénées. Memoires du Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle (Paris), serie A Zoologie 51, 1–195.Google Scholar
Diengdoh, C.R. & Tandon, V. (1991) A new species of Polystoma (Monogenea) parasitic in rhacophorid amphibians in Meghalaya, India. Helminthologia 28, 173–178.Google Scholar
Gallien, L. (1935) Reserches experimentales sur le dimorphisme evolutiff et la biologie de Polystoma integerrimum Zeder. Travaux du Station de Zoologie, Wimereux 12, 1–181.Google Scholar
Kok, D.J. & Seaman, M.T. (1987) Polystomatidae (Monogenea) parasitic in the anuran genus Natalobatrachus in South Africa. South African Journal of Zoology 22, 258–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kok, D.J. & Seaman, M.T. (1989) Aspects of the biology, habitat requirements and conservation status of Natalobatrachus bonebergi (Anura: Ranidae). Lammergeyer 40, 10–17.Google Scholar
Maeder, A.-M. (1973) Monogènes et trématodes parasites d'amphibiens en Côte d'lviore. Revue Suisse de Zoologie 80, 267–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murith, D. (1982) Etude in vivo de la nature des relations hôte-parasite dans le complexe Amphibien–Polystome (Monogenea). Revue Suisse de Zoologie 89, 957–965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poynton, J.C. (1964) The Amphibia of southern Africa: a faunal study. Annals of the Natal Museum 17, 1–334.Google Scholar
Savage, R.M. (1950) Observations on some natural epizootics of the trematode Polystoma integerrimum among tadpoles of Rana temporaria temporaria. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 120, 15–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tinsley, R.C. (1990) Host behaviour and opportunism in parasitic life cycles, in Barnard, C.J. & Behnke, J.M. (Eds) Parasitism and host behaviour. Taylor & Francis, London.Google Scholar
Tinsley, R.C. & Earle, C.M. (1983) Invasion of vertebrate lungs by the polystomatid monogeneans Pseudodiplorchis americanus and Neodiplorchis scaphiopodis. Parasitology 86, 501–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tinsley, R.C. & Jackson, H.C. (1988) Pulsed transmission of Pseudodiplorchis americanus (Monogenea) between desert hosts (Scaphiopus couchii). Parasitology 97, 437–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tinsley, R.C. & Owen, R.W. (1975) Studies on the biology of Protopolystoma xenopodis (Monogenoidea): the oncomir-acidium and life-cycle. Parasitology 71, 445–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tocque, K. & Tinsley, R.C. (1991a) Assymetric reproductive output by the monogenean Pseudodiplorchis americanus. Parasitology 102, 213–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tocque, K. & Tinsley, R.C. (1991b) The influence of desert temperature cycles on the reproductive biology of Pseudodiplorchis americanus (Monogenea). Parasitology 103, 111–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tocque, K. & Tinsley, R.C. (1992) Ingestion of host blood by the monogenean Pseudodiplorchis americanus: a quantitative analysis. Parasitology 104, 283–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Niekerk, S., Kok, D.J. & Seaman, M.T. (1993) A new species of Polystoma (Monogenea: Polystomatidae) parasitic in Hyperolius marmoratus (Anura: Hyperoliidae) in South Africa. Systematic Parasitology 25, 73–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wager, V.A. (1986) Frogs of South Africa, their fascinating life stories. Delta Books, Craighall.Google Scholar