Find research datasets worth reusing

Fig. 1 in Interactions of cranial helminths in the European polecat (Mustela putorius): Implications for host body condition

Fig. 1. Dorsal views of European polecat (Mustela putorius) skulls with or without infestations of the cranial helminths Skrjabingylus nasicola and Troglotrema acutum. (a) Skull of a non-infested one-year-old male. (b) Skull of a threeyear-old male with lesions in the frontal bone resulting from an infestation with T. acutum. (c) Lesions in both postorbital processes and the rear of the frontal bone of a skull of a two-year-old male infested with both parasites. (d) Lesion in the right postorbital process of a skull of a two-year-old male infested with both parasites. (e) Skull of a three-year-old female with lesions in both postorbital processes resulting from an infestation with S. nasicola. (f) Lesions in both postorbital processes and the frontal bone of a skull of a four-year-old female infested with both parasites. (g) Skull of a two-year-old female infested with T. acutum that is characterised by large perforations in the frontal bone and exposure of the frontal sinus and the nasal cavity. (h) Skull of a four-year-old male with perforations in and distensions of the frontal bone resulting from an infestation with T. acutum. (i) Skull of a five-year-old male characterised by multiple perforations and distended and sponge-like appearance of the bones across the whole of the frontal dorsal cranium.

Fig. 4 in Interactions of cranial helminths in the European polecat (Mustela putorius): Implications for host body condition

Fig. 4. Marginal effects plot of logistic regression model predicting the presence of skull damage as a function of sex of the host, the abundance of S. nasciola and a selection of T. acutum abundances. The colour of the 95% confidence interval corresponds to the T. acutum abundance of the same colour. The plot is based on the most parsimonious model identified after model selection (see Table 2). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

Fig. 2 in Helminths of sigmodontine rodents in an agroforestry mosaic in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest: Patterns and processes of the metacommunity structure

Fig. 2. Ordinated matrices for the helminths metacommunity at Pratigi Environmental Protection Area, municipality of Igrapiúna, state of Bahia, northeast Brazil. A) Infracommunities and B) Component Communities.

Fig. 1 in Helminths of sigmodontine rodents in an agroforestry mosaic in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest: Patterns and processes of the metacommunity structure

Fig. 1. The bipartite network analysis illustrating the rodent–helminth association at Pratigi Environmental Protection Area, municipality of Igrapiúna, state of Bahia, northeast Brazil. The brackets separate the rodent tribes.

Fig. 2 in Ecological drivers of helminth infection patterns in the Virunga Massif mountain gorilla population

Fig. 2. Principal component analysis output showing associations between variables and the first two principal components PC1 and PC2. Each variable contribution to principal components and its quality are represented by length of vector and its color, respectively. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

Fig. 1 in Ecological drivers of helminth infection patterns in the Virunga Massif mountain gorilla population

Fig. 1. Location of study gorilla groups during the Virunga Massif 2015–2016 surveys (Hickey et al., 2019) expressed as centroids of their 500-m buffered minimum-convex polygon. Vegetation data were adopted according to WWF-Germany and IGCP 2017; boundaries of protected areas were derived from ProtectedP lanet.net database. Map was created using ArcGIS Desktop 10.8 (ESRI, 2020. ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10.8. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute; esri.com).

Fig. 4. Predicted lines from a in Ecological drivers of helminth infection patterns in the Virunga Massif mountain gorilla population

Fig. 4. Predicted lines from a generalized linear mixed model for significant effects of (a) the second principal component (PC2), (b) interaction between the first principal component (PC1) and MCP = area of 500-m buffered minimum convex polygon of detected nest sites per gorilla group, (see Minimum convex polygon calculation and Statistical analyses for details) and (c) interaction between monitoring (habituation) status and MCP on tapeworm infection (egg counts per gram in fecal sample). Principal components were computed from 10 correlated environmental variables (see Material and methods for details).

Fig. 3. Predicted lines from a in Ecological drivers of helminth infection patterns in the Virunga Massif mountain gorilla population

Fig. 3. Predicted lines from a generalized linear mixed model for significant effects of (a) the first (PC1) and (b) second principal component (PC2), (c) Density = mean relative density of gorillas per MCP and (d) MCP = area of 500-m buffered minimum convex polygon of detected nest sites per gorilla group, (see Minimum convex polygon calculation and Statistical analyses for details) on strongylid infection (egg counts per gram in fecal sample). Principal components were computed from 10 correlated environmental variables (see Material and methods for details).

Fig. 4 in Biases in parasite biodiversity research: why some helminth species attract more research than others

Fig. 4. Box plots (median and interquartile range) showing (A) number of citations received by species descriptions following their publication, and (B) number of mentions of a species' name in the scientific literature following its description, for helminth parasites as a function of the number of authors of the original species description. Data from the Zoological Record™ database. Extreme values (25 species descriptions with more than 50 citations; 3 species with more than 30 mentions) are excluded to avoid distorting the figures.

Fig. 3 in Biases in parasite biodiversity research: why some helminth species attract more research than others

Fig. 3. Box plots (median and interquartile range) showing (A) number of citations received by species descriptions following their publication, and (B) number of mentions of a species' name in the scientific literature following its description, for helminths parasitising six host groups. Data from the Zoological Record™ database. Values greater than 50 citations (comprising 14 fish, 1 amphibian, 5 reptiles, 1 bird and 4 mammals) and greater than 30 mentions (comprising 1 amphibian, 1 bird and 1 mammal) are excluded to avoid distorting the figures.

Fig. 2 in Biases in parasite biodiversity research: why some helminth species attract more research than others

Fig. 2. Box plots (median and interquartile range) showing (A) number of citations received by species descriptions following their publication, and (B) number of mentions of a species' name in the scientific literature following its description, for helminth parasites of five higher taxa. Data from the Zoological Record™ database. Values greater than 50 citations (comprising 1 cestode, 10 monogeneans, 3 trematodes, and 11 nematodes) and greater than 30 mentions (comprising 1 trematode and 2 nematodes) are excluded to avoid distorting the figures.

Fig. 1 in Biases in parasite biodiversity research: why some helminth species attract more research than others

Fig. 1. Frequency distribution of (A) number of citations received by species descriptions following their publication, and (B) number of mentions of a species' name in the scientific literature following its description, for helminth parasites described between the years 2000 and 2018. Data from the Zoological Record™ database. Extreme values (25 species descriptions with more than 50 citations; 3 species with more than 30 mentions) are excluded to avoid distorting the figures.

Fig. 5 in Influence of seasonality and biological activity on infection by helminths in Cantabrian bear

Fig. 5. Seasonal kinetics of helminths egg-output in Cantabrian brown bears (n = 248) according to their activity periods. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

Fig. 2 in Influence of seasonality and biological activity on infection by helminths in Cantabrian bear

Fig. 2. Seasonal variations in the prevalence of helminth infection in feces of brown bears (n = 248) from the western part of the Cantabrian Mountains (Asturias and Le´on provinces, Spain). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

Fig. 4 in Influence of seasonality and biological activity on infection by helminths in Cantabrian bear

Fig. 4. Seasonal variations in the prevalence of helminth infection in feces of brown bears (n = 248) from Cantabrian Mountains (Spain) according to their activity periods. (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 Influence of seasonality and biological activity on infection by helminths in Cantabrian bear

Fig. 1. Distribution of the sampling of brown bear feces (n = 248) in the western part of the Cantabrian Mountains (Asturias and Le´on provinces, Spain). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

Fig. 3 in Ranavirus and helminth parasite co-infection in invasive American bullfrogs in the Atlantic forest, Brazil

Fig. 3. (a) The negative relationship between log-transformed Nematoda abundance and Ranavirus load (copies-ng; P <0.05). Points represent individuals that tested positive for Ranavirus infection with viral load assay data (N = 12). The nematode abundances in Ranavirus-negative individuals are shown on the x-axis. (b) The relationship between log-transformed total macroparasite abundance and bullfrog snout-vent length (cm) and Ranavirus infection status with fitted regression lines (P <0.001). Data represent individuals from sites that had at least one Ranavirus infection (4 sites, N = 35).

Fig. 2 in Ranavirus and helminth parasite co-infection in invasive American bullfrogs in the Atlantic forest, Brazil

Fig. 2. (a) Observed occurrence matrix of presence (red cells) and absence (white cells) of Ranavirus and helminth taxa (6 rows) infection in individual bullfrogs (Aquarana catesbeiana; 65 columns). (b) Simulated occurrence matrix (65 columns, one null matrix out of 1000 simulations). (c) Distribution of simulated cooccurrence metric (blue histogram bars; 1000 null matrices). Vertical red line = observed co-occurrence metric. Dashed vertical lines = 95% and 99% confidence intervals. (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 Ranavirus and helminth parasite co-infection in invasive American bullfrogs in the Atlantic forest, Brazil

Fig. 1. Distribution of helminth macroparasite taxa and Ranavirus infection status and prevalence across sampling locations. The thick gray outline shown in the inset map of Brazil highlights the states where American bullfrog (Aquarana catesbeiana) sampling took place (SP = S˜ao Paulo, PR = Paran´a, SC = Santa Catarina). Green shading represents tropical and subtropical forest biomes. Sample locations included Embu das Artes (Site 1, N = 13), Piedade (Site 2, N = 10), and Iporanga (Site 3, N = 4) in S˜ao Paulo; Quatro Barras (Site 4, N = 10), Piraquara (5, N = 2), and S˜ao Jose´dos Pinhais (Site 6, N = 4) in Paran´a; and Blumenau (Site 7, N = 9), Urubici (Site 8, N = 10), and Chapeco´(Site 9, N = 3) in Santa Catarina. Helminth pie chart size corresponds to average helminth abundance in bullfrogs. Differences in helminth taxa richness (P <0.001) and evenness (PIE; P <0.001) were detected; however, helminth abundance did not differ among sites between collection sites. Sites where Ranavirus was detected (N = 4) have a corresponding pie chart, in which the size corresponds to average viral load (copies-ng) per individual at a site. Estimated Ranavirus prevalence among the positive sites did not differ significantly (P = 0.06). Viral load of positive individuals differed among sites (P <0.05), but differences were driven by the high load found in the single Blumenau (Site 7) Ranavirus-positive bullfrog. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)