Find research datasets worth reusing

Fig. 1 in Behavioral, physiological and morphological correlates of parasite intensity in the wild Cururu toad (Rhinella icterica)

Fig. 1. Association between the score of the first component of a PCA on morphological variables (large heart, kidney and intestine masses) and parasite intensities in Rhinella icterica (N = 16). Full circles represent total parasite intensity (r = 0.66, P <0.01), open circles represent pulmonary parasite intensity (r = 0.71, P <0.01), and open triangles represent intestinal parasite intensity (r = 0.51, P = 0.04).

Fig. 1 in Pufferfish nests vs. parasite hooks: A bizarre resemblance

Fig. 1. Two different views of a pupperfish nest is shown in a and c. A row of hooks of a Hymenolepis genus tapeworm can be observed in b, and one of Taenia in d. a,c: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWtmSoimhcM. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijppaw.2017.03.005

Fig. 1. A in Seasonality, richness and prevalence of intestinal parasites of three neotropical primates (Alouatta seniculus, Ateles hybridus and Cebus versicolor) in a fragmented forest in Colombia

Fig. 1. A. Trichuris sp., B. Oxyuridae, C. Ancylostomatidae, D. Strongyloides sp. (larva), E. Ascarididae, F. Gnathostomatidae, G. Trichostrongylidae, H-I. Trematodes, J. Entamoeba sp. (cyst), K. Acanthocephala, L. Balantidiidae.

Fig. 1 in Temporal and demographic blood parasite dynamics in two free-ranging neotropical primates

Fig. 1. Annual prevalence of single- and co-infections by species. Prevalence indicated for each parasite (dark gray), and each pairwise combination of parasites (light gray). Numbers near the top of each bar show the exact prevalence; black lines indicate 95% confidence intervals; dots indicate expected levels of co-infection (refer to Section 3.2). M-D is co-occurrence of M. mariae and Dipetalonema spp., D-T is Dipetalonema spp. and T. minasense, and M-T is M. mariae and T. minasense.

Fig. 2 in Impacts of crustacean invasions on parasite dynamics in aquatic ecosystems: A plea for parasite-focused studies

Fig. 2. Introduced hosts ‾ native parasites: hypothetical examples of the potential effects of invasive crustaceans on native parasites. Note that only a subsample of nonexclusive scenarios from a number of potential outcomes of biological invasion on native parasite dynamics is represented here. The hypothetical native parasite considered here has a two-host life cycle involving a definitive host predator and an intermediate host prey, transmission from the intermediate host to the definitive host requiring consumption of infected intermediate host prey. The variable sizes of squares, circles and diamonds represent relative intermediate and definitive hosts, and parasite abundances, respectively. During transmission, some parasites are unsuccessful and therefore lost from the system (parasite loss); the thickness of the arrows indicates the relative numbers that are either lost or successfully transmitted. The life cycle at the top represents the situation prior to the invasion, providing a benchmark for comparisons. (A) The invader is a suitable alternative intermediate host in which native parasite larvae can survive. However, the introduced host is also a poor transmission vector, due to low predation rate from the definitive host and/or failed host manipulation by the parasite, for example. Introduced hosts are thus more infected than their congeneric, native hosts only because of the accumulation of native parasite larvae that fail to get transmitted to the definitive host. This may in turn negatively affect parasite dynamics in native hosts as shown here. (B) The invader is again a suitable alternative intermediate host but also a good transmission vector to the definitive host, leading to greater infection risk for native definitive hosts. In this case, the invader positively influences parasite dynamics and may increase infection levels in definitive hosts, as shown here. In extreme cases, invasive hosts may be more efficient vectors for the parasite than native hosts and become key hosts. (C) The invader is not a suitable host but directly impacts native intermediate hosts, the transmission vector for the parasite, through predation and thus indirectly reduces native parasite abundance in native definitive hosts.

Fig. 1 in Impacts of crustacean invasions on parasite dynamics in aquatic ecosystems: A plea for parasite-focused studies

Fig. 1. Hypothetical examples of enemy release (A), dilution effect (B), parasite spillback (C) and spillover (D) following introduction of a non-native host in a recipient ecosystem, illustrating the fundamental differences among the different processes. The theoretical recipient ecosystem is here composed of a native host infected by a parasite with a simple life cycle and direct transmission, invaded by a congeneric non-native host infected with a co-introduced parasite with a similar life cycle, to simplify representation. The variable sizes of squares and diamonds represent relative host and parasite abundances, respectively. The thickness of the arrows represents transmission dynamics of the parasite and account for parasite loss during transmission. Enemy release (A) happens when the introduced species benefits from a reduction, or total loss as represented here, in parasitism as a result of invasion. This may in turn have drastic effects on invasion success and both native and invasive host abundances. Dilution effect (B) results from the failure of native parasites to use invasive hosts for successful reproduction and transmission. Native parasites may be unable to infect or be killed (as represented here) by the invasive host. Dilution may in turn decrease parasite transmission among native hosts and negatively affect parasite population dynamics. Parasite spillback (C) happens when invasive hosts acquire a native parasite that is already present in the native host population. Infected invasive hosts can then act as reservoirs of native parasites, potentially increasing infection levels in native hosts as represented here. Increased infection levels in the native host may in turn reduce native host abundance, compared to pre-invasion levels (not represented here). Parasite spillover (D) follows the co-introduction of non-native parasites with their invasive hosts and infection of native hosts by the introduced parasite. Infection of the native host can be maintained by the invasive host, which acts as a reservoir of infection, self-sustained if the parasite can reproduce in its novel host, or both as represented here. Infection of the native host by the introduced parasite can in turn influence host abundances, compared to pre-invasion levels. Note that in scenario D, the native host may or may not possess native parasites.

Fig. 4 in Variations in infection levels and parasite-induced mortality among sympatric cryptic lineages of native amphipods and a congeneric invasive species: Are native hosts always losing?

Fig. 4. Parasite abundance as a function of amphipod body size (used as a proxy for age) in each of the 8 amphipod MOTUs. The polynomial effect of body size on parasite abundance is modeled with a general mixed effect linear model with a Poisson distribution and a log link function. The y axis is in log scale for representation purposes. Body size is rescaled to initial values in the graph for representation purposes. Predicted curves are represented in plain black lines with their standard errors in dotted lines.

Fig. 2 in Variations in infection levels and parasite-induced mortality among sympatric cryptic lineages of native amphipods and a congeneric invasive species: Are native hosts always losing?

Fig. 2. Mean parasite prevalences (proportion of infected individuals in %) among amphipod populations/sampling sites and their bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals in the different MOTUs sampled and for the three acanthocephalan species, separately and overall (all three parasites grouped). Overall prevalences in MOTUs assigned different letters are significantly different at the 0.05 level.

Fig. 1 in Variations in infection levels and parasite-induced mortality among sympatric cryptic lineages of native amphipods and a congeneric invasive species: Are native hosts always losing?

Fig. 1. Genetic divergence levels (%) among MOTUs of the G. fossarum/G. pulex species complex found in our sampling sites/rivers. Gammarus roeseli was identified morphologically rather than genetically.

Fig. 3 in Impacts of crustacean invasions on parasite dynamics in aquatic ecosystems: A plea for parasite-focused studies

Fig. 3. Introduced parasites ‾ native/introduced hosts: hypothetical examples of the potential effects of invasive crustaceans on native parasites. Note that only a subsample of non-exclusive scenarios from a number of potential outcomes of non-native parasite introduction is represented here. The hypothetical non-native parasite considered here has a two-host life cycle involving a definitive host predator and an intermediate host prey, transmission from the intermediate host to the definitive host requiring consumption of infected intermediate host prey. The variable sizes of squares, circles and diamonds represent relative intermediate and definitive hosts, and parasite abundances, respectively. During transmission, some parasites are unsuccessful and therefore lost from the system (parasite loss); the thickness of the arrows indicates the relative numbers that are either lost or successfully transmitted. The life cycle at the top left represents the situation in the ecosystem of origin of the parasite, providing a benchmark for comparisons. Prior to the invasion, the hypothetical recipient ecosystem does not contain native parasites for simplification of representation. (A) The parasite is co-introduced with its intermediate host prey. The invasive parasite retains its original, co-introduced hosts and uses native definitive hosts to complete its life cycle. The situation represented here is the simplest one where the native predator exactly replaces the original definitive host of the parasite with no effect on either parasite dynamics or host abundance. However, parasite invasion may in turn negatively affect native predators and change parasite dynamics compared to that observed in the original ecosystem (shown at the top left). (B) The parasite is again cointroduced with its intermediate host prey. The invasive parasite retains its original, co-introduced hosts and uses native definitive hosts to complete its life cycle but also uses the native prey species as an alternative transmission vector. The introduced parasite may negatively influence native host abundance, thus influencing invasion success of its co-introduced host, as shown here. This may in turn lead to greater infection levels in definitive hosts in the recipient ecosystem than in the original ecosystem of the parasite (situation not represented here) (C) The non-native parasite is introduced without its original host (or this host does not survive translocation) but is subsequently included in the recipient food web. The novel parasite may in turn have drastic effects on intermediate and/or native hosts and reach higher infection levels in these novel hosts as represented here. However, a multitude of alternative scenarios are possible with as many outcomes in terms of parasite dynamics.

Fig. 3 in Variations in infection levels and parasite-induced mortality among sympatric cryptic lineages of native amphipods and a congeneric invasive species: Are native hosts always losing?

Fig. 3. Mean parasite abundances (mean number of acanthocephalan larvae per individual host) among amphipod populations/sampling sites and their bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals in the different MOTUs sampled and for the three acanthocephalan species, separately and overall (all three parasites grouped). Overall abundances in MOTUs assigned different letters are significantly different at the 0.05 level.

Fig. 5 in Helminth parasites of howler and spider monkeys in Mexico: Insights into molecular diagnostic methods and their importance for zoonotic diseases and host conservation

Fig. 5. Phylogenetic trees based on 28S (left) and cox1 (right) sequences of Strongyloides eggs. Sequences obtained from the eggs are bold type and indicated with an *. Numbers at the nodes represent posterior probabilities from Bayesian inference.

Fig. 2 in Helminth parasites of howler and spider monkeys in Mexico: Insights into molecular diagnostic methods and their importance for zoonotic diseases and host conservation

Fig. 2. Egg morphotypes found in the faeces of Mexican primates. A) Trypanoxyuris sp., B) Controrchis biliophilus, arrow pointing to the two eyespot remnants; C) trematode, diagnosed as C. biliophilus by molecular data; D) unidentified ancylostomatid; E) Strongyloides sp.; F) unidentified ascarid. Scale bar is equal to 15 Mm.

Fig. 4 in Helminth parasites of howler and spider monkeys in Mexico: Insights into molecular diagnostic methods and their importance for zoonotic diseases and host conservation

Fig. 4. Phylogenetic tree based on 28S sequences of Controrchis biliophilus. Sequences obtained from the eggs are bold type and indicated with an *. Numbers at the nodes represent posterior probabilities from Bayesian inference. Host species are indicated within parenthesis.

Fig. 1 in Helminth parasites of howler and spider monkeys in Mexico: Insights into molecular diagnostic methods and their importance for zoonotic diseases and host conservation

Fig. 1. Surveyed sites for parasites in Mexican primates. Dots indicate sampling sites, black: Alouatta palliata; white: A. pigra; and grey: Atetes geoffroyi. Polygons indicate the primate distribution range in Mexico, diagonal lines: A. palliata; dashes: A. pigra; and grey: A. geoffroyi.

Fig. 1 in Gastrointestinal parasites in captive and free-ranging Cebus albifrons in the Western Amazon, Ecuador

Fig. 1. From left to right in each row: Hymenolepis sp., Capillaria sp., Strongyloides sp., Prosthenorchis elegans, Strongyle (unidentified), Entamoeba histolytica/dispar/moskovskii/ nuttalli. (40x).

Fig. 3 in Helminth parasites of howler and spider monkeys in Mexico: Insights into molecular diagnostic methods and their importance for zoonotic diseases and host conservation

Fig. 3. Phylogenetic trees based on 28S (left) and cox1 (right) sequences of Trypanoxyuris sp. Sequences obtained from the eggs are bold type and indicated with an *. Numbers at the nodes represent posterior probabilities from Bayesian inference.

Fig. 3 in Co-infection patterns of intestinal parasites in arboreal primates (proboscis monkeys, Nasalis larvatus) in Borneo

Fig. 3. Differences in width among trichurid egg morphotypes found in proboscis monkey feces. (T1 n = 11, T2 n = 30, T3 n = 30, T4 n = 2, and T5 n = 10). Median, boxes define the 25th and 75th percentiles, whiskers extend to maximum ± 1.5 times the interquartile range (IQR = middle 50% of the records). *p = 0.05; **p = 0.001; ***p = 0.0001.

Fig. 2 in Co-infection patterns of intestinal parasites in arboreal primates (proboscis monkeys, Nasalis larvatus) in Borneo

Fig. 2. Taxonomic diversity of helminth parasites found in proboscis monkeys. The five detected helminth orders were: the order Enoplida, trichurids (morphotypes T1-T4 genus Trichuris, T5 genus Anatrichosoma), the order Strongylida (morphotypes S1 genus Trichostrongylus, S2 genus Oesophagostomum/Ternidens, S3 unknown strongylid), the order Rhabditida, genus Strongyloides (R), the order Ascaridida, genus Ascaris (with exfoliated rough brown outer shell layer) (A) and the order Oxyurida, genus Enterobius (O). Scale bars = 50 Mm. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article).

Fig. 1 in Co-infection patterns of intestinal parasites in arboreal primates (proboscis monkeys, Nasalis larvatus) in Borneo

Fig. 1. Sample collection sites along the Kinabatangan River in Borneo. The island of Borneo, South-East Asia, with position of Lot 6 on the southern riverbank in the Lower Kinabatangan Wildlife Sanctuary in Sabah, Malaysian Borneo. Map reproduced according to GPS data points collected and mapped via Garmin Map Source (version 6.16.3).