Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-g7rbq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-26T10:23:52.293Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Diversity studies of salmonella incidents in some domestic livestock and their potential relevance as indicators of niche width

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

P. R. Hunter  and
J. Izsák
P. R. Hunter
Affiliation:
Public Health Laboratory, City Hospital, Hoole Lane, Chester CH2 3EG
J. Izsák
Affiliation:
Berzsenyi Dániel Tanárképzö, Föiskola, Biológia Tanszék, H-9701 Szombathely, POB. 170, Szabadság tér 4, Hungary
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This study attempts to determine whether or not livestock are becoming more susceptible to epidemics of salmonella infections by the analysis of published data on the annual number of reported infections in various animals. The number of incidents reported each year may be subject to a variety of biases due to temporal and geographical differences in reporting practices. This study analysed these reports by the calculation of diversity indices which are not subject to some of these potential biases. The relationship between the ecological concept of niche width and the diversity of species or types occupying that niche is discussed. The diversity of salmonella types reported in fowl has shown a highly significant decline over the 13-year period 1976–88. It is suggested that this declining diversity may be related to the declining niche width of the biotope available to this pathogen. Although speculative, this reduction in niche width could be related to a declining genetic diversity in the host animals or to an increasing intensification of animal husbandry.

Type
Research Article
Information
Epidemiology & Infection , Volume 105 , Issue 3 , December 1990 , pp. 501 - 510
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

References

REFERENCES

1.St Louis, ME, Morse, DLPotter, ME et al. , The emergence of grade A eggs as a major source of Salmonella enteritidis infections. J Amer Med Assoc 1988; 259: 2103–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Cowden, JM, Lynch, D, Joseph, CA et al. Case control study of infections with Salmonella enteritidis phage type 4 in England. Br Med J 1989; 299: 771–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Buxton, A. Salmonellosis in animals. Farnham: Royal Commonwealth Agriculture Bureau, 1958.Google Scholar
4.Rampling, A, Anderson, JR, Upson, R, Peters, E, Ward, LR, Rowe, B. Salmonella enteritidis phage type 4 infection of broiler chickens: a hazard to public health. Lancet 1989; ii: 436–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Pielou, EC. Ecological diversity. New York: Wiley, 1975.Google Scholar
6.Roughgarden, J. Theory of population genetics and evolutionary ecology: an introduction. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co. Inc., 1979.Google Scholar
7.Schoener, TW. Resource partitioning in ecological communities. Science 1974; 185: 27–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Van Valen, L. Morphological variation and width of ecological niche. American Naturalist 1965; 99: 377–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Selander, RK, Smith, MH, Yang, SY, Johnson, WE, Gentry, JB. Biochemical polymorphism and systematics in the genus Peromyscus. I. Variation in the old-field mouse. Stud Genet 1971; 6, 49–90.Google Scholar
10.Caugant, DA, Levin, BR, Selander, RK. Genetic diversity and temporal variation in the E. coli population of a human host. Genet 1981; 98: 467–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Hunter, PR, Gaston, MA. Numerical index of the discriminatory ability of typing schemes: an application of Simpson's index of diversity. J Clin Microbiol 1988; 26: 2465–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Bremermann, HJ. Sex and polymorphism as strategies in host-pathogen interactions. Theoret Biol 1980; 87: 671–702.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Tooby, J. Pathogens, polymorphism and the evolution of sex. J Theoret Biol 1982; 97: 557–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Animal salmonellosis. London: Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, 1988.Google Scholar
15.Hurlbert, SM. The non-concept of species diversity: a critique and alternative parameters. Ecology 1971; 52: 577–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Smith, W, Grassle, JF. Sampling properties of a familv of diversity measures. Biometrics 1977; 33: 283–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Kempton, RA. The structure of species abundance and measurement of diversity. Biometrics 1979; 35: 307–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Izsák, J. Numerical experimentation on diversity curves applied in epidemiology. Biométry-Praximétry 1989; 29: 97–113.Google Scholar
19.Borowski, EJ, Borwein, JM. Dictionary of mathematics. London: Collins, 1989: 53–4.Google Scholar
20.Atlas, RM, Bartha, R. Microbial ecology: fundamentals and applications. Reading (Mass): Addison-Wesley, 1981.Google Scholar
21.Robinson, JV, Sandgren, CD. An experimental evaluation of diversity indices as environmental discriminators. Hydrobiologia 1984; 108: 187–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Jones, JS. St Patrick and the bacteria. Nature 1982; 296: 113–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Izsák, J. Secular changes of the concentration of neoplasm death causes in the male population of some countries. Genus 1988; 44: 119–30.Google ScholarPubMed
24.Washington, HG. Diversity, biotic and similarity indices, a review with special relevance to aquatic ecosystems. Water Research 1984; 18: 653–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25.Hill, MO. Diversity and evenness: a unifying notation and its consequences. Ecology 1973; 54: 427–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26.Izsák, J. Measuring the secular changes of the concentration of death causes. Genus 1986; 42: 197–208.Google Scholar
27.Smith, JM. Evolutionary genetics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1989: 14–28.Google Scholar