Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T21:59:56.820Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Pattern of anuran infection by acanthocephalans from the Cerrado, Northeastern Brazil with a summary for South America

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2024

B.R. dos Santos
Affiliation:
Departamento de Biologia, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Biodiversidade e Conservação, Centro de Ciências Biológicas e da Saúde, Universidade Federal do Maranhão, Cidade Universitária Dom Delgado, CEP 65080-805, São Luís, MA, Brazil
A.A.M. Teixeira*
Affiliation:
Centro de Ciências de Chapadinha, Universidade Federal do Maranhão, Br 222, Km 04, S/N, Boa Vista, CEP 65500-000, Chapadinha, MA, Brazil
J.M. do Nascimento
Affiliation:
Centro de Ciências Biológicas e da Saúde, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Rede – Rede de Biodiversidade e Biotecnologia da Amazônia Legal – BIONORTE, Universidade Federal do Maranhão, Cidade Universitária Dom Delgado, CEP 65080-805, São Luís, MA, Brazil
S.V. Brito
Affiliation:
Centro de Ciências de Chapadinha, Universidade Federal do Maranhão, Br 222, Km 04, S/N, Boa Vista, CEP 65500-000, Chapadinha, MA, Brazil
*
Corresponding author: A.A.M. Teixeira; Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In Brazil, acanthocephalans parasitise anurans in several biomes. In the present study, we performed an analysis of acanthocephalan infections across 175 anuran individuals from the Cerrado biome, belonging to ten species: Boana raniceps, Pithecopus hypochondrialis, Scinax fuscomarginatus, Scinax x-signatus, Leptodactylus pustulatus, Leptodactylus macrosternum, Leptodactylus vastus, Physalaemus cuvieri, Adenomera hylaedactyla, and Elachistocleis piauiensis. We also verified the specificity of the parasites using the STD* index. Additionally, we conducted a survey of acanthocephalan infection in anurans in South America. The studied assemblage in the Brazilian Cerrado presented 57 parasitised hosts of 175 specimens (overall prevalence: 32.6%). In total, 437 acanthocephalans cystacanths were recorded, among which 286 presented the same morphotype but could not be identified, 148 belonged to the genus Centrorhynchus, and three belonged to Oncicola. Unidentified acanthocephalans had a higher prevalence in L. vastus (53.85%) and the highest intensity was in L. pustulatus (17±16). The highest prevalence of Centrorhynchus sp. was in the species S. fuscomarginatus (28.57%), while the highest intensity was observed in L. vastus (111). The taxon Oncicola sp. it had a prevalence of 3.23% and an intensity of 3 only in S. x-signatus. The highest specificity was recorded for Oncicola sp. (STD*= 1), whereas the lowest was found in Centrorhynchus sp. (STD*= 2.21). Finally, according to the survey for South America, we found ten records of acanthocephalan taxa parasitizing 58 species of anurans distributed in seven countries (Brazil with the most records).

Type
Research Paper
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

Acanthocephala currently comprises about 1,298 described species (Amin Reference Amin2013). These organisms make up one of the four subclasses of the phylum Rotifera (Nielsen Reference Nielsen2012; Brusca et al. Reference Brusca, Moore and Shuster2018) and are obligate intestinal vertebrate parasites with no free-living members (Kennedy Reference Kennedy2006). In the adult stage, Acanthocephala bodies are cylindrical or slightly flattened, with retractable proboscises (cylindrical and with curved hooks) that are ideal for anchoring the parasite to the host’s intestinal wall. Many species have rings of spines along their bodies (Nielsen Reference Nielsen2012).

The life cycle and developmental stages of these parasites are remarkably similar across species, comprising the egg stage (containing a larva, the acanthor); the larval stages of acanthella and cystacanth in an intermediate arthropod host; and finally, the adult stage in a definitive vertebrate host (Kennedy Reference Kennedy2006; Near Reference Near2002). At times, the acanthocephalan life cycle of some species may utilise paratenic or transport hosts (Near Reference Near2002). Proportionally, birds and fish are the most widely used definitive hosts, followed by mammals. In turn, amphibians and reptiles are less commonly used. As for habitat, acanthocephalans are predominantly aquatic parasites and are frequently found in freshwater vertebrates (Kennedy Reference Kennedy2006). In the context of the life cycle, Perrot-Minnot et al. (Reference Perrot-Minnot, Cozzarolo, Amin, Barčák, Bauer, Marijić and Sures2023) point out the need to expand and disseminate knowledge on the range of hosts used by each acanthocephalan species. In the case of acanthocephalans, the degree of specificity varies between intermediate, paratenic, and definitive hosts and constitutes a crucial factor for the distribution and abundance of the parasite (Kennedy Reference Kennedy2006).

Acanthocephalans comprise part of a model parasite–host system that requires studies on their life cycles, their transmission strategies, and their host exploitation, as well as factors that contribute to host specialisation (Perrot-Minnot et al. Reference Perrot-Minnot, Cozzarolo, Amin, Barčák, Bauer, Marijić and Sures2023). Due to the small number of described acanthocephalan species, they have received less attention compared to other groups of endoparasitic metazoans. Nonetheless, it is still considered a successful group, as they infect all vertebrate taxa and are found in all biomes and ecosystems (Kennedy Reference Kennedy2006). In a survey of anuran endoparasites in South America by Campião et al. (Reference Campião, Morais, Dias, Aguiar, Toledo, Tavares and Silva2014a), acanthocephalans were found to be relatively rare, with 15 registered taxa, infecting 39 species of anurans. For comparison purposes, nematodes reached 150 registered taxa.

Amphibians are hosts to a rich diversity of associated parasites and can be infected at any time between the larval and adult stages (Bower et al. Reference Bower, Brannelly, McDonald, Webb, Greenspan, Vickers, Gardner and Greenlees2019; Duellman and Trueb Reference Duellman and Trueb1994). Approximately 88 species of brazilian amphibians (mostly anurans) had records of infection by helminths, including acanthocephalans (Campião et al. Reference Campião, Morais, Dias, Aguiar, Toledo, Tavares and Silva2014a). In most anuran taxa studied, acanthocephalans are completely absent, or, when present, they are not the most prevalent or abundant parasites nor do they infect the widest range of host species (Aguiar et al. Reference Aguiar, Morais, Cicchi and Silva2014; Bursey et al. Reference Bursey, Goldberg and Parmelee2001; Santos et al. Reference Santos, Amato and Borges-Martins2013; Toledo et al. Reference Toledo, Aguiar, Silva and Anjos2013; Toledo et al. Reference Toledo, Fonseca, Iannacone, Cardenas Callirgos, Pineda Castillo and da Silva2017). In contrast, a study by Martins-Sobrinho (Reference Martins-Sobrinho, WGdO, EGd, GJBd and JBd2017) was one of the few that recorded acanthocephalans as the most abundant and prevalent endoparasites in anurans of the families Hylidae and Phylomedusidae. However, possible explanations for this finding are not discussed.

The total of 209 anuran species are found in the Cerrado biome, with a high level of endemism (51.7%) (Valdujo et al. Reference Valdujo, Silvano, Colli and Martins2012). In the Cerrado in the state of Mato Grosso do Sul, two anuran species were reported as being infected by unidentified acanthocephalans (Queiroz et al. Reference Queiroz, Pontes, Neto, Campião and Anjos2020). In the transition between the Cerrado and Atlantic Forest in the state of São Paulo, Aguiar (Reference Aguiar, Morais, Silva, Dos Anjos, Foster and Silva2021) found the infection of 13 anuran species by unidentified cystacanths and acanthocephalans of the Centrorhynchidae family. Thus, the present study aims to characterise the acanthocephalan fauna associated with ten anuran species from a Cerrado fragment in Northeastern Brazil, seeking to geographically expand the knowledge on anuran acanthocephalan fauna in the country. In addition, we present their levels of specificity. With the aim of contributing to knowledge about the geographic distribution of anuran acanthocephalans in South America, we also present the locality records for each species, considering that new publications with records of acanthocephalan infections in anurans from South America have been recorded after the last survey carried out by Campião et al. (Reference Campião, Morais, Dias, Aguiar, Toledo, Tavares and Silva2014a).

Materials and methods

Study area

Host collection was conducted in the Itamacaoca Protection Reserve – IPR (3°44′55″S 43°19′58″W; datum WGS84), a Cerrado area located in the Chapadinha municipality, Maranhão state, Northeastern Brazil (Figure 1). This reserve covers approximately 460ha and contains the Itamacaoca Dam, the main source of drinking water for the urban region of the municipality of Chapadinha (Silva et al. Reference Silva, Martins, Santos, JLS, Selbach and Leite2008). The Reserve is composed of a mosaic of vegetation, with riparian forests, gallery forests, cerrado fields, and relicts of Cerradão. However, due to the advance of the agricultural frontier in this municipality, the region has experienced habitat loss and fragmentation (Silva et al. Reference Silva, Martins, Santos, JLS, Selbach and Leite2008). The climate is tropical, with an average annual temperature of 27.6 °C and an average annual rainfall volume of 1452 mm. The rainy season runs from December to May and the dry season from June to November (Climate-Data 2021).

Figure 1. Itamacaoca Protection Reserve – IPR located in the Chapadinha municipality, Maranhão state, Northeastern Brazil.

Data collection

Animal collections were carried out during the rainy season between January and March 2020, from 6:00 p.m to 10:00 p.m. Nine active searches were carried out, totaling 36 hours of fieldwork. Searches were carried out by a minimum of two and a maximum of four people. Specimens were actively sought in the soil, at the edges of water bodies, and in the surrounding vegetation. After being manually collected, anurans were immediately stored in plastic bags filled with a small volume of water or in damp cloth bags. They were then transported to the herpetology laboratory at the Chapadinha Science Center of the Universidade Federal do Maranhão, where they were euthanised using a lethal dose (60 to 100 mg/kg) of Thiopental, administered intraperitoneally. Following euthanasia, the animals were tagged, identified, and weighed, and their snout-vent length was measured. Sex was determined by analysing the gonads during dissection. The taxonomic classification of hosts is in accordance with Frost (Reference Frost2021).

The anurans were dissected, and the lungs and gastrointestinal tract were analysed under a stereomicroscope. When present, acanthocephalans were counted and stored in vials with 70% alcohol. Subsequently, they were temporarily mounted on slides containing glycerol (McAllister and Bursey Reference McAllister and Bursey2007), analysed under a light microscope, and identified to the lowest possible taxonomic level according to McDonald (Reference McDonald1988), Van Cleave (Reference Van Cleave1923), Smales (Reference Smales2007a), Santos & Amato (Reference Santos and Amato2010a), and Palmer et al. (Reference Palmer, Dib, Lobão, Pinheiro, Ramos, Uchoa, Bastos, Silva, do Nascimento and Pissinatti2020). The hosts were fixed in a 10% formalin solution, stored in bottles with 70% alcohol, and deposited in the Claude d’Abbeville Herpetological Collection at the Chapadinha Science Center of the Universidade Federal do Maranhão, Brazil.

Ethical aspects

The collection and use of amphibians in the present study was authorised by the Instituto Chico Mendes de Biodiversidade (ICMBio/SISBIO - authorisation number: 71407-1, 71407-2) and the Commission for Ethics in the Use of Animals of the Universidade Federal do Maranhão (CEUA- UFMA - process no. 23115.031592/2019-38).

Quantitative descriptors

Prevalence and mean intensity of infection were calculated according to Bush (Reference Bush, Lafferty, Lotz and Shostak1997). Prevalence is the ratio between the number of hosts infected by a given species and the total number of hosts collected, multiplied by 100. Mean intensity is calculated by the total number of parasites of a species divided by the total number of hosts parasitised by that species. Both descriptors were calculated for each anuran species.

Host specificity

In order to determine the specificity of each acanthocephalans species to their hosts, the specificity index STD * (Poulin and Mouillot Reference Poulin and Mouillot2005) was calculated using the following equation:

$$ {S}_{TD^{\ast }}=\frac{\varSigma {\sum}_{i<j}{\omega}_{ij}\left({p}_i{p}_j\right)\;}{\varSigma {\sum}_{i<j}\left({p}_i{p}_j\right)} $$

where ωij is the taxonomic distinction between host species i and j, and pi and pj represent parasite prevalence in host species i and j. The index was calculated in the TaxoBiodiv2 program (Poulin and Mouillot Reference Poulin and Mouillot2005) only for acanthocephalans identified down to the genus level. The closer the index value converges to 1, the more specific the parasite. The maximum value is 5, when using five taxonomic levels and when all host species belong to different classes (Poulin and Mouillot Reference Poulin and Mouillot2005).

Bibliographic survey

Acanthocephalan records were verified in the following scientific bases: PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scielo. We only included studies where parasites were identified to at least the genus level and where the geographic coordinates or name of the host collection site were described in our analyses. The time range of publications was 1990–present. The following keywords were used in our research: “anuran acanthocephalans in South America”; “anuran acanthocephalans followed by the name of each country in South America”. Information on the species sampled in the present study was also included.

Results

Our anuran sampling in the IPR resulted in the capture of 175 anuran specimens, belonging to ten species and three families (Table 1). We recorded an overall prevalence of 32.6% (57 anurans infected by 437 specimens of acanthocephalans). Two taxa were identified in the cystacanth stage: Centrorhynchus sp., with 148 specimens being found to infect six species of anurans, and Oncicola sp., where three specimens were found in one species of anuran (Table 1). The former presents a receptacle for the proboscis and is positioned in the middle part of the proboscis section located behind simple, spine-like thorns. In front of this insertion point, there are sturdy hooks that curve backward. The second is characterised by having cement glands that are nearly round in shape (Van Cleave Reference Van Cleave1923). The lemnisci are extremely elongated, resembling sub-cylinders, and they occupy over three-fourths of the body cavity’s length (Van Cleave Reference Van Cleave1923). Furthermore, 286 acanthocephalans cystacanths (that presented the same morphotype) found in nine species could not be identified due to a lack of clear visualisation of taxonomic characters.

Table 1. Acanthocephalans and infected hosts from the Itamacaoca Protection Reserve, Maranhão state, Brazil. Specificity index (S TD*), prevalence (P %), mean intensity of infection (MII), and number of analysed hosts (N)

Note: means appear as ± 1 SD; * new registered host.

Unidentified acanthocephalans had a higher prevalence in L. vastus (53.85%) and a lower prevalence in L. pustulatus (12.5%). The highest intensity was in L. pustulatus (17±16) and the lowest in E. piauiensis (1). The highest prevalence of Centrorhynchus sp. was in the species S. fuscomarginatus (28.57%) and the lowest in L. macrosternum (4%). The species Oncicola sp. had maximum specificity (S TD*= 1), whereas Centrorhynchus sp. was less specific (S TD*= 2.21).

From the bibliographic survey, we found 31 eligible scientific articles according to our inclusion criteria, and after analysing this bibliography, we found ten records of acanthocephalan taxa parasitising 58 species of anurans in seven South American countries (Table 2; Figure 2). We observed that few locations on the continent have been sampled, and six countries still have no records of identified acanthocephalans in amphibians. Of the countries with records, Brazil was the most sampled, followed by Paraguay, Ecuador, Colombia, Chile, Peru, and Argentina. Centrorhynchus sp. is the most widely distributed taxon, spanning across Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Paraguay, Colombia, and Peru.

Table 2. Locations in South America and respective recorded acanthocephalan taxa in anurans

Figure 2. Records of anuran acanthocephalans identified at least to the genus level in South America.

Discussion

Our study provides the first record of acanthocephalans of the genus Oncicola in anurans of the genus Scinax and anurans of the family Hylidae. The genus Oncicola comprises 24 species and uses carnivorous mammals as definitive hosts (Amin Reference Amin2013). It is rarely recorded in anurans, despite being highlighted as potential paratenic hosts (Goldberg et al. Reference Goldberg, Bursey, Salgado-Maldonado, Báez and Cañeda2002). In amphibians, the genus Oncicola has already been recorded in Colombia in Oophaga histrionica (Dendrobatidae) (Goldberg and Bursey Reference Goldberg and Bursey2003) and Mexico in Lithobates brownorum (Ranidae) (Velazquez-Urrieta and León-Règagnon Reference Velazquez-Urrieta and León-Règagnon2018), L. vaillanti (Ranidae) (Paredes-Calderón et al. Reference Paredes-Calderón, León-Règagnon and García-Prieto2004), and L. forreri (Ranidae) (Cabrera-Guzmán et al. Reference Cabrera-Guzmán, Garrido-Olvera and León-Règagnon2010). Our record expands the knowledge of helminth infection to include amphibian fauna in Brazil and more specifically in the northeastern Cerrado.

Anurans are considered definitive hosts of acanthocephalans (Richardson Reference Richardson2013), but some species have been recorded as paratenic hosts (Santos and Amato Reference Santos and Amato2010b; Schmidt Reference Schmidt, Crompton and Nickol1985). The genus Centrorhynchus is an example of an acanthocephalan that uses amphibians to reach its definitive hosts (birds and terrestrial predators) (Hernandez-Orts et al. Reference Hernandez-Orts, Kuchta, Semenas, Crespo, Gonzalez and Aznar2019; Kennedy Reference Kennedy2006; Santos and Amato Reference Santos and Amato2010b). The taxon comprises 100 species (Amin Reference Amin2013) and is one of the most frequently recorded acanthocephalan genera in South American anurans, distributed across Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, Colombia, and Peru (Torres and Puga Reference Torres and Puga1996; Goldberg and Bursey Reference Goldberg and Bursey2003; Campião et al. Reference Campião, Morais, Dias, Aguiar, Toledo, Tavares and Silva2014a; Martins-Sobrinho et al. Reference Martins-Sobrinho, WGdO, EGd, GJBd and JBd2017; Oliveira et al. Reference Oliveira, Ávila and Morais2019; Oliveira et al. Reference Oliveira, Mascarenhas, Batista-Oliveira, de Castro Araújo, Ávila and Borges-Nojosa2022). In Brazil, it has already been recorded in the Atlantic Forest (Graça et al. Reference Graça, Oda, Lima, Guerra, Gambale and Takemoto2017; Martins-Sobrinho et al. Reference Martins-Sobrinho, WGdO, EGd, GJBd and JBd2017) and Caatinga (Oliveira et al. Reference Oliveira, Mascarenhas, Batista-Oliveira, de Castro Araújo, Ávila and Borges-Nojosa2022). Santos (Reference Santos and Amato2010a) categorised the anuran Rhinella fernandezae as a paratenic host of Centrorhynchus sp., which suggests, in the present study, that the five species of anurans infected by this taxon are paratenic hosts. Although paratenic hosts are not obligatory for the physiological development of acanthocephalans, they may serve as a trophic level in these parasites’ life cycles (Richardson Reference Richardson2013), providing protection during this period against the external environment in addition to more effectively directing the parasite to its definitive host (Parker et al. Reference Parker, Chubb, Ball and Roberts2003).

Despite being a small group that presents a low diversity of larval stages and life cycles, acanthocephalans are well distributed, both spatially and among hosts, even when compared to other larger and more diverse parasite groups, such as nematodes (Kennedy Reference Kennedy2006). Contrary to the present study, in most surveys of anuran populations, these parasites are not usually representative (Aguiar et al. Reference Aguiar, Morais, Cicchi and Silva2014; Bursey et al. Reference Bursey, Goldberg and Parmelee2001; Santos et al. Reference Santos, Amato and Borges-Martins2013; Toledo et al. Reference Toledo, Aguiar, Silva and Anjos2013; Toledo et al. Reference Toledo, Fonseca, Iannacone, Cardenas Callirgos, Pineda Castillo and da Silva2017). One exception to this is a study by Martins-Sobrinho et al. (Reference Martins-Sobrinho, WGdO, EGd, GJBd and JBd2017), who found acanthocephalans in all nine anuran species analysed in the Atlantic Forest that were even more prevalent than nematodes. The species Centrorhynchus sp. in the species S. x-signatus, for example, had a prevalence of 45% and a mean intensity of 5.4±7.7. However, in the present study, its prevalence was 16.13% and the mean intensity was 3.40±1.36 in the same anuran species. Santos and Amato (Reference Santos and Amato2010b) found Centrorhynchus sp. in 84% of Rhinella fernandezae individuals in Rio Grande do Sul state. Silveira et al. (Reference Silveira, Mascarenhas, Huckembeck, Müller and Loebmann2022) found Centrorhynchus sp. in 59% of Boana pulchella hosts, also in Rio Grande do Sul State.

According to Janovy et al. (Reference Janovy, Clopton and Percival1992), ecological factors are the main determinants of parasite population structure. For example, in a study carried out on a population of anurans of the species Physalaemus cuvieri in the Atlantic Forest, Leivas et al. (Reference Leivas, Leivas and Campião2018) found that acanthocephalans had higher infection rates than nematode species, mainly cystacanths from the Centrorhynchidae family, with a prevalence of 42.8% and an average intensity of 2.8 ± 1.7. In this study, the host’s diet was attributed to the high prevalence of acanthocephalans found by Leivas et al. (Reference Leivas, Leivas and Campião2018). In fact, host feeding habits are determinant for acanthocephalan infection (Kennedy Reference Kennedy2006) since these parasites have a heteroxene life cycle, in which arthropods are the intermediate hosts (Kennedy Reference Kennedy2006; Santos and Amato Reference Santos and Amato2010b). As such, we can assume that the rarity of acanthocephalans frequently reported in studies is attributed to the absence or lower abundance of suitable intermediate hosts, preventing successful infection (Kennedy Reference Kennedy2006; Campião et al. Reference Campião, Silva and Ferreira2014b).

Although our small sample size did not allow for a detailed analysis of the environmental influence on the dynamics of acanthocephalans and their hosts, it seems that each biome can impose an environmental dynamic of biotic and abiotic factors that interferes with the prevalence and intensity of different parasite taxa. The work of Thieltges et al. (Reference Thieltges, Jensen and Poulin2008) provides a broad review of several abiotic factors that affect metazoan infection rates such as temperature, salinity, PH, UV-radiation, hardness, and pollutants, as well biotic factors such as hyperparasites, physical disturbance by organisms, toxic exudates from organisms, decoy organisms, predation, and alternative hosts. For example, during the egg stage of acanthocephalans, transmission success is influenced by environmental factors that increase or decrease the pool of infectious stages and infection rates (Thieltges et al. Reference Thieltges, Jensen and Poulin2008).

In natural environments, some organisms can ingest or filter certain species of parasites without serving as intermediate or definitive hosts and thus control parasite abundance in the environment. Therefore, it is expected that fluctuations in the population sizes of these filter-feeding/ingesting species will directly influence the increase or decrease in parasitism rates (Thieltges et al. Reference Thieltges, Jensen and Poulin2008). Additionally, amphibian populations also experience fluctuations in terms of size due to their dependence on bodies of water for reproduction. In rainy years, survival and population growth are high, but in dry years, reproduction rates can drop, preventing population growth (Pough et al. Reference Pough, Bemis, McGuire and Janis2023). Therefore, the patterns of acanthocephala infection recorded in our study may reflect some of the scenarios that exist in this range of recruitment method, normally observed in anurans. However, only long-term sequence sampling will be able to clarify this trend.

In addition, anuran biology and transmission dynamics work in conjunction with abiotic factors in the parasite community at each location (McAlpine Reference McAlpine1997). Therefore, the structure of the acanthocephalan community in the anurans of the present study probably results from the joint action of these factors, although it is not possible to separate the relative importance of each of them.

When considering biotic and abiotic factors, we must also consider anthropogenic impacts on parasite transmission dynamics (Thieltges et al. Reference Thieltges, Jensen and Poulin2008), such as habitat fragmentation and degradation, to which gastrointestinal parasites are vulnerable (Kiene et al. Reference Kiene, Andriatsitohaina, Ramsay, Rakotondravony, Strube and Radespiel2021). The Itamacaoca Reserve (i.e., the study collection site) suffers from fragmentation and loss of vegetation cover (Silva et al. 2008). This fragmentation can alter host density (due to the reduced size of the habitat), which can affect parasite diversity (Chakraborty et al. Reference Chakraborty, Reddy, Tiwari and Umapathy2019), since infection rates can be mediated by the abundance of intermediate hosts in the environment and host accessibility to parasites (which is generally related to host abundance) (Kiene et al. Reference Kiene, Andriatsitohaina, Ramsay, Rakotondravony, Strube and Radespiel2021). Therefore, the chances of contact between intermediate and final hosts, and between hosts and parasites, may be greater in fragmented areas, favoring transmission and possibly generating changes in the infection rates found in this study.

Janovy et al. (Reference Janovy, Clopton and Percival1992) state that the presence of a parasitic species in a host species is strongly influenced by evolutionary factors. However, the infection data obtained in the present study suggest an ecological influence on the observed infection pattern, corroborating the studies by Sampaio et al. (Reference Sampaio, Teixeira, Do Nascimento, Ribeiro, Almeida and Brito2022) and Oliveira et al. (Reference Oliveira, Sousa, Carvalho, Ávila and DM2023). In the case of acanthocephalans, hosts from a given locality are probably more related ecologically due to similarities in diet and habitat than phylogenetically (McAlpine Reference McAlpine1997; Kennedy Reference Kennedy2006), which should explain the presence of Centrorhynchus sp. and Oncicola sp. in the anuran hosts of the present study.

The species Oncicola sp. was the only acanthocephalan associated with a single host species, with maximum specificity. A high degree of specialisation indicates a low chance of survival in a location if the host population becomes extinct (Kennedy Reference Kennedy2006). However, Combes (Reference Combes2001) states that to ensure the continuity of the cycle, highly specific parasites must occur in stable environments and in continuous and abundant host populations. Furthermore, anurans likely serve as paratenic hosts for Oncicola sp. (Goldberg et al. Reference Goldberg, Bursey, Salgado-Maldonado, Báez and Cañeda2002), which perhaps explains the fact that it was only found in one species. However, less specific helminths, such as Centrorhynchus sp., probably cope better with local extinctions and fluctuations in the host population (Poulin et al. Reference Poulin, Krasnov, Mouillot and Thieltges2011).

In South America, there are records of acanthocephalans in Peru (Bursey et al. Reference Bursey, Goldberg and Parmelee2001; Chero et al. Reference Chero, Cruces, Iannacone, Sáez, Alvariño, da Silva and Morales2014), Chile (Fernandez and Ibarra Reference Fernandez and Ibarra1990), Argentina (Arredondo and de Pertierra Reference Arredondo and de Pertierra2009; Gonzalez and Hamann Reference Gonzalez and Hamann2006; Hamann et al. Reference Hamann, González and Kehr2006), Colombia (Goldberg and Bursey Reference Goldberg and Bursey2003), Paraguay (Smales Reference Smales2007a), Ecuador (Smales Reference Smales2007b), and Brazil, with distributions in the Atlantic Forest (Aguiar et al. Reference Aguiar, Morais, Cicchi and Silva2014; Graça et al. Reference Graça, Oda, Lima, Guerra, Gambale and Takemoto2017; Martins-Sobrinho et al. Reference Martins-Sobrinho, WGdO, EGd, GJBd and JBd2017; Toledo et al. Reference Toledo, Aguiar, Silva and Anjos2013), Cerrado (Aguiar et al. Reference Aguiar, Morais, Silva, Dos Anjos, Foster and Silva2021; Queiroz et al. Reference Queiroz, Pontes, Neto, Campião and Anjos2020), Caatinga (Oliveira et al. Reference Oliveira, Ávila and Morais2019; Oliveira et al. Reference Oliveira, Mascarenhas, Batista-Oliveira, de Castro Araújo, Ávila and Borges-Nojosa2022; Silva-Neta et al. Reference Silva-Neta, Alcantara, Oliveira, Carvalho, Morais, Silva and Ávila2020), and Pantanal (Campião et al. Reference Campião, da Silva, Dalazen, Paiva and Tavares2016; Campião et al. Reference Campião, Silva and Ferreira2014b) biomes. Although Brazil’s ecosystems remain insufficiently explored, they boast the highest diversity of acanthocephalans on the continent. Nonetheless, South America still remains undersampled, with five countries still lacking studies on this topic. Our survey highlights the need for further studies in this regard, seeking to understand patterns of infection by acanthocephalans.

We emphasise that new studies have been published following the checklist of parasitic helminths in anurans from South America, carried out by Campião et al. (Reference Campião, Morais, Dias, Aguiar, Toledo, Tavares and Silva2014a) between 1925 and 2012. Thus, our study aims to contribute to the aforementioned survey, focusing on the geographic distribution of known acanthocephalans. However, there are still significant gaps in sampling, which shows that the true extent of the diversity and distribution of these organisms is far from being fully understood due to the limited data collection to date.

In summary, our study provides valuable information about the distribution of acanthocephalans in South American anurans, particularly in northeastern Brazil. Furthermore, our findings highlight the structural role of ecological and environmental factors, including host diet habits, on infection rates. Therefore, considering these factors, along with potential human impacts, a comprehensive investigation into infection patterns observed in this acanthocephalan population is essential.

Acknowledgements

We thank the Conselho Nacional de Pesquisa e Apoio ao Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) and the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa e ao Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico do Maranhão (FAPEMA) for a research fellowship to Adonias Aphoena Martins Teixeira (PDCTR/FAPEMA/CNPq 301692/2021-2). This study was partially financed by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – Brasil (CAPES) – Finance code 001. The authors also thank the Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade (ICMBio - ICMBio/SISBIO - 71407-1 and 71407-2) for the license for anuran capture and the ethics committee of the Universidade Federal do Maranhão (CEUA-UFMA - 23115.031592/2019-38) for approving this study.

Competing interest

None.

Ethical standard

All authors gave their consent to participation in the study. The study was approved by the Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade, with permission to collect the animals, and the ethics committee of the Universidade Federal do Maranão.

References

Aguiar, A, Morais, DH, Cicchi, PJP, and Silva, RJ (2014) Evaluation of helminths associated with 14 amphibian species from a neotropical island near the southeast coast of Brazil. Herpetological Review 45, 227236.Google Scholar
Aguiar, A, Toledo, GM, Anjos, LA, and Silva, RJ (2015) Helminth parasite communities of two Physalaemus cuvieri Fitzinger, 1826 (Anura: Leiuperidae) populations under different conditions of habitat integrity in the Atlantic Rain Forest of BrazilBrazilian Journal of Biology 75, 963968.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aguiar, A, Morais, DH, Silva, LAF, Dos Anjos, LA, Foster, OC, and Silva, RJ (2021) Biodiversity of anuran endoparasites from a transitional area between the Atlantic Forest and Cerrado biomes in Brazil: new records and remarks. Zootaxa 4948, 141.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Amin, OM (2013) Classification of the Acanthocephala. Folia Parasitologica 60, 273305. doi: 10.14411/fp.2013.031.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arredondo, NJ and de Pertierra, AAG (2009) Pseudoacanthocephalus lutzi (Hamann, 1891) comb. n. (Acanthocephala: Echinorhynchidae) for Acanthocephalus lutzi (Hamann, 1891), parasite of South American amphibians. Folia Parasitologica 56, 295304.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bower, DS, Brannelly, LA, McDonald, C, Webb, RJ, Greenspan, SE, Vickers, M, Gardner, MG, and Greenlees, MJ (2019) A review of the role of parasites in the ecology of reptiles and amphibians. Austral Ecology 44, 433448. doi: 10.1111/aec.12695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brusca, RC, Moore, W, and Shuster, SM (2018) Invertebrados. 3rd edn. Rio de Janeiro, Guanabara Koogan.Google Scholar
Bursey, CR, Goldberg, SR, and Parmelee, JR (2001) Gastrointestinal helminths of 51 species of anurans from Reserva Cuzco Amazónico, Peru. Comparative Parasitology 68, 2135.Google Scholar
Bursey, CR, Vrcibradic, D, Hatano, FH, and Rocha, CFD (2006) New genus, new species of Acanthocephala (Echinorhynchidae) from the Brazilian frog Hylodes phyllodes (Anura: Leptodactylidae). Journal of Parasitology 92, 353356. doi: 10.1645/GE-3518.1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bush, AO, Lafferty, KD, Lotz, JM, and Shostak, AW (1997) Parasitology meets ecology on its own terms: Margolis et al. revisited. Journal of Parasitology 83, 575583. doi: 10.2307/3284227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cabrera-Guzmán, E, Garrido-Olvera, L, and León-Règagnon, V (2010) Helminth parasites of the leopard frog Lithobates sp. Colima (Amphibia: Ranidae) from Colima, Mexico. Journal of Parasitology 96, 736739. doi: 10.1645/GE-2335.1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campião, KM, da Silva, ICO, Dalazen, GT, Paiva, F, and Tavares, LER (2016) Helminth parasites of 11 Anuran species from the Pantanal Wetland, Brazil. Comparative Parasitology 83, 92100. doi: 10.1654/1525-2647-83.1.92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campião, KM, Morais, DH, Dias, OT, Aguiar, A, Toledo, GM, Tavares, LER, and Silva, RJ (2014a) Checklist of helminth parasites of amphibians from South America. Zootaxa 3843, 193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campião, KM, Silva, RJ, and Ferreira, VL (2014b) Helminth parasite communities of allopatric populations of the frog Leptodactylus podicipinus from Pantanal, Brazil. Journal of Helminthology 88, 1319. doi: 10.1017/S0022149X12000557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chakraborty, D, Reddy, M, Tiwari, S, and Umapathy, G (2019) Land use change increases wildlife parasite diversity in Anamalai Hills, Western Ghats, India. Scientific Reports 9, 11975. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-48325-8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chero, J, Cruces, C, Iannacone, J, Sáez, G, Alvariño, L, da Silva, RJ, and Morales, VR (2014) Gastrointestinal parasites in three species of Telmatobius (Anura: Telmatobiidae) in the high Andes, PeruNeotropical Helminthology 8, 439461.Google Scholar
Chero, J, Cruces, C, Iannacone, J, Sáez, G, Alvariño, L, Luque, J, and Morales, V (2016) Comunidad de helmintos parásitos del sapo espinoso Rhinella spinulosa (Wiegmann, 1834) (Anura: Bufonidae) de Perú. Revista de Investigaciones Veterinarias del Perú 27, 114129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Climate-Data.Org Clima: Chapadinha. Available at https://pt.climate-data.org/america-do-sul/brasil/maranhao/chapadinha-44081/. Accessed January 11, 2021.Google Scholar
Combes, C (2001) Parasitism: the ecology and evolution of intimate interactions. Chicago and London, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Duellman, WE and Trueb, L (1994) Biology of amphibians. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandez, JC and Ibarra, HG (1990) Acanthocephalus caspanensis n. sp. (Acanthocephala: Echinorhynchidae) parásito de Bufo spinulosus Wiegmann en el altiplano Chileno. Studies on Neotropical Fauna and Environment 25, 5764. doi: 10.1080/01650529009360803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frost, DR (2021) Amphibian species of the world: an online reference. Version 6.1. New York, American Museum of Natural History. Available at https://amphibiansoftheworld.amnh.org/index.php. Accessed May 20, 2021.Google Scholar
Goldberg, SR and Bursey, CR (2003) Helminths of two anuran species, Atelopus spurrelli (Bufonidae) and Dendrobates histrionicus (Dendrobatidae), from Colombia, South America. Parasitology International 52, 251253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, SR, Bursey, CR, Salgado-Maldonado, G, Báez, R, and Cañeda, C (2002) Helminth parasites of six species of anurans from Los Tuxtlas and Catemaco Lake, Veracruz, Mexico. Southwestern Naturalist 47, 293299. doi: 10.2307/3672917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonzalez, CE and Hamann, MI (2006) Helmintos parásitos de Leptodactylus bufonius Boulenger, 1894 (Anura: Leptodactylidae) de Corrientes, Argentina. Revista Española de Herpetologia 20, 3946.Google Scholar
Graça, RJ, Oda, FH, Lima, FS, Guerra, V, Gambale, PG, and Takemoto, RM (2017) Metazoan endoparasites of 18 anuran species from the mesophytic semideciduous Atlantic Forest in southern Brazil. Journal of Natural History 125. doi: 10.1080/00222933.2017.1296197.Google Scholar
Hamann, MI, González, CE, and Kehr, AI (2006) Helminth community structure of the oven frog Leptodactylus latinasus (Anura, Leptodactylidae) from Corrientes, Argentina. Acta Parasitologica 51, 294299. doi: 10.2478/s11686-006-0045-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamann, MI, Kehr, AI, and Gonzalez, CE (2010) Helminth community structure of Scinax nasicus (Anura: Hylidae) from a South American subtropical areaDiseases of Aquatic Organisms 93, 7182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamann, MI, Kehr, AI, and González, CE (2012) Community structure of helminth parasites of Leptodactylus bufonius (Anura: Leptodactylidae) from northeastern Argentina. Zoological Studies 51, 14541463.Google Scholar
Hamann, MI, Kehr, AI, González, CE, Duré, MI, and Schaefer, EF (2009) Parasite and reproductive features of Scinax nasicus (Anura: Hylidae) from a South American subtropical areaInterciencia 34, 214218.Google Scholar
Hernandez-Orts, JS, Kuchta, R, Semenas, L, Crespo, EA, Gonzalez, RA, and Aznar, FJ (2019) An annotated list of the Acanthocephala from Argentina. Zootaxa 4663(1), 164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoppe, EGL, Pedrassani, D, Hoffmann-Inocente, AC, Tebaldi, JH, Storti, LF, Zanuzzo, FS, Avancini, N, and Do Nascimento, AA (2008) Estudos ecológicos em taxocenoses helmintícas de Chaunus ictericus (Spix, 1824) e C. schneideri (Werner, 1894) (Anura: Bufonidae) simpátricos, capturados no distrito de São Cristóvão, município de Três Barras, Santa Catarina. Revista Brasileira de Parasitologia Veterinária 17, 166169.Google Scholar
Janovy, JJ, Clopton, RE, Percival, TJ (1992) The roles of ecological and evolutionary influences in providing structure to parasite species assemblages. Journal of Parasitology 78, 630640.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kennedy, CR (2006) Ecology of the Acanthocephala. New York, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiene, F, Andriatsitohaina, B, Ramsay, MS, Rakotondravony, R, Strube, C, and Radespiel, U (2021) Habitat fragmentation and vegetation structure impact gastrointestinal parasites of small mammalian hosts in Madagascar. Ecology and Evolution 11, 67666788. doi: 10.1002/ece3.7526.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leivas, PT, Leivas, FWT, and Campião, KM (2018) Diet and parasites of the anuran Physalaemus cuvieri Fitzinger, 1826 (Anura: Leiuperidae) from an Atlantic Forest fragment. Herpetology Notes 11, 109113.Google Scholar
Martins-Sobrinho, PM, WGdO, Silva, EGd, Santos, GJBd, Moura, and JBd, Oliveira (2017) Helminths of some tree frogs of the families Hylidae and Phyllomedusidae in an Atlantic rainforest fragment, Brazil. Journal of Natural History 51, 16391648. doi: 10.1080/00222933.2017.1337945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAllister, CT and Bursey, CR (2007) Some nematode and acanthocephalan parasites of the longnose leopard lizard, Gambelia wislizenii (Lacertilia: Crotaphytidae), from Arizona, California, and Texas, with a summary of the helminths reported from this host. Comparative Parasitology 74, 179184. doi: 10.1654/4230.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAlpine, DF (1997) Helminth communities in bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana), green frogs (Rana clamitans), and leopard frogs (Rana pipiens) from New Brunswick, Canada. Canadian Journal of Zoology 75, 18831890. doi: 10.1139/z97-818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, ME (1988) Key to Acanthocephala reported in waterfowl. Washington, DC, United States Fish and Wildlife Service.Google Scholar
Near, TJ (2002) Acanthocephalan phylogeny and the evolution of parasitism. Integrative and Comparative Biology 42, 668677. doi: 10.1093/icb/42.3.668.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nielsen, C (2012) Animal evolution: interrelationships of the living phyla. 3rd edn. Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Oliveira, CR, Ávila, RW, and Morais, DH (2019) Helminths associated with three Physalaemus species (Anura: Leptodactylidae) from Caatinga biome, Brazil. Acta Parasitologica 64, 205212. doi: 10.2478/s11686-018-00022-8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oliveira, CR, Mascarenhas, W, Batista-Oliveira, D, de Castro Araújo, K, Ávila, RW, and Borges-Nojosa, DM (2022) Endoparasite community of anurans from an altitudinal rainforest enclave in a Brazilian semiarid area. Journal of Helminthology 96, e62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliveira, CR, Sousa, JGS, Carvalho, EFF, Ávila, RW, and DM, Borges‑Nojosa (2023) Effect of altitude and spatial heterogeneity on the host‑parasite relationship in anurans from a remnant humid forest in the brazilian semiarid. Parasitology Research 122, 26512666. doi:10.1007/s00436-023-07965-6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Palmer, JPS, Dib, LV, Lobão, LF, Pinheiro, JL, Ramos, RCF, Uchoa, CMA, Bastos, OMP, Silva, MEM, do Nascimento, JL, and Pissinatti, A (2020) Oncicola venezuelensis (Marteau, 1977) (Acanthocephala: Oligacanthorhynchidae) in Puma concolor in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Veterinary Parasitology 29, e009620. doi: 10.1590/S1984-29612020046.Google ScholarPubMed
Paredes-Calderón, L, León-Règagnon, V, and García-Prieto, L (2004) Helminth infracommunities of Rana vaillanti Brocchi (Anura: Ranidae) in Los Tuxtlas, Veracruz, Mexico. Journal of Parasitology 90, 692696. doi: 10.1645/GE-226R.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parker, GA, Chubb, JC, Ball, MA, and Roberts, GN (2003) Evolution of complex life cycles in helminth parasites. Nature 425, 480484.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perrot-Minnot, MJ, Cozzarolo, CS, Amin, O, Barčák, D, Bauer, A, Marijić, VF, … and Sures, B (2023) Hooking the scientific community on thorny-headed worms: interesting and exciting facts, knowledge gaps and perspectives for research directions on AcanthocephalaParasite 30(23).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinhão, R, Wunderlich, AC, Alves dos Anjos, L, and Silva, RJ (2009) Helminths of toad Rhinella icterica (Bufonidae), from the municipality of Botucatu, São Paulo State, Brazil. Neotropical Helminthology 3, 3540.Google Scholar
Pough, FH, Bemis, WE, McGuire, B, and Janis, CM (2023) Vertebrate life. 11th edn. New York, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Poulin, R, Krasnov, BR, Mouillot, D, and Thieltges, DW (2011) The comparative ecology and biogeography of parasites. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 366, 23792390. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2011.0048.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poulin, R and Mouillot, D (2005) Combining phylogenetic and ecological information into a new index of host specificity. Journal of Parasitology 91, 511514. doi: 10.1645/GE-398R.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Queiroz, MS, Pontes, MR, Neto, MC, Campião, KM, and Anjos, LA (2020) Helminths of 8 anuran species from a remnant riparian forest in the Cerrado biome, Brazil. Herpetology Notes 13, 463478.Google Scholar
Richardson, DJ (2013) Acanthocephala. Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sampaio, NKS, Teixeira, AAM, Do Nascimento, JM, Ribeiro, SC, Almeida, WO, and Brito, SV (2022) Endoparasite community structure of an anuran assemblage in the Caatinga, Northeastern Neotropical Region. Journal of Helminthology 96(e78), 18. doi:10.1017/S0022149X22000682.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Santos, VGT and Amato, SB (2010a) Helminth fauna of Rhinella fernandezae (Anura: Bufonidae) from the Rio Grande do Sul coastland, Brazil: analysis of the parasite community. Journal of Parasitology 96, 823826. doi: 10.1645/GE-2388.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santos, VGT, Amato, SB, and Borges-Martins, M (2013) Community structure of helminth parasites of the “Cururu” toad, Rhinella icterica (Anura: Bufonidae) from southern Brazil. Parasitology Research 112, 10971103. doi: 10.1007/s00436-012-3236-8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Santos, VGT, Borges-Martins, M, and Amato, SB (2016) Community structure of parasites of the tree frog Scinax fuscovarius (Anura, Hylidae) from Campo Belo do Sul, Santa Catarina, Brazil. Neotropical Helminthology 10, 4150.Google Scholar
Santos, VGTd and Amato, SB (2010b) Rhinella fernandezae (Anura, Bufonidae) a paratenic host of Centrorhynchus sp. (Acanthocephala, Centrorhynchidae) in Brazil. Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad 81, 5356.Google Scholar
Schaefer, EF, Hamann, MI, Kehr, AI, Gonzalez, CE, and Duré, MI (2006) Trophic, reproductive and parasitological aspects of the ecology of Leptodactylus chaquensis (Anura: Leptodactylidae) in ArgentinaHerpetological Journal 16, 387394.Google Scholar
Schmidt, GD (1985) Development and life cycles. in Crompton, DWT and Nickol, BB (Eds), Biology of the Acanthocephala. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 694Google Scholar
Sena, PA, Conceição, BM, Silva, PF, Silva, WG, Ferreira, WB, Júnior, VAS, Moura, GJB, and de Oliveira, JB (2018) Helminth communities of Pithecopus nordestinus (Anura: Phyllomedusidae) in forest remnants, BrazilHerpetology Notes 11, 565572.Google Scholar
Silva-Neta, AF, Alcantara, EP, Oliveira, CR, Carvalho, EFF, Morais, DH, Silva, RJ, and Ávila, RW (2020) Helminths associated with 15 species of anurans from the Ibiapaba plateau, northeastern Brazil. Neotropical Helminthology 14, 207216. doi: 10.24039/rnh2020142795.Google Scholar
Silva, ALG, Martins, F, Santos, R, and JLS, Nunes (2008) Conservação da Reserva da Itamacaoca de Chapadinha/MA. in Selbach, JF and Leite, JRSA (Eds), Meio Ambiente no Baixo Parnaíba: olhos no mundo, pés na região. São Luís, Brazil, EDUFMA. 109116Google Scholar
Silveira, EC, Mascarenhas, CS, Huckembeck, S, Müller, G, and Loebmann, D (2022) Parasitic helminths in Boana pulchella (Duméril & Bibron, 1841) (Anura: Hylidae) and their relation with host diet, body size, and habitatCuadernos de Herpetología 36, 155167.Google Scholar
Smales, LR (2007a) Acanthocephala in amphibians (Anura) and reptiles (Squamata) from Brazil and Paraguay with description of a new species. Journal of Parasitology 93, 392398. doi: 10.1645/GE-937R.1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smales, LR (2007b) Acanthocephalans of amphibians and reptiles (Anura and Squamata) from Ecuador, with the description of Pandosentis napoensis n. sp (Neoechinorhynchidae) from Hyla fasciataZootaxa 1445, 4956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thieltges, DW, Jensen, KT, and Poulin, R (2008) The role of biotic factors in the transmission of free-living endohelminth stages. Parasitology 135, 407426. doi: 10.1017/S0031182007000248.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Toledo, GM, Aguiar, A, Silva, RJ, and Anjos, LA (2013) Helminth fauna of two species of Physalaemus (Anura: Leiuperidae) from an undisturbed fragment of the Atlantic rainforest, Southeastern Brazil. Journal of Parasitology 99. doi: 10.1645/GE-3212.1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Toledo, GDM, Fonseca, MG, Iannacone, J, Cardenas Callirgos, JM, Pineda Castillo, C, and da Silva, RJ (2017) Infection with Pseudoacanthocephalus lutzi (Hamann, 1891) (Acanthocephala: Echinorhynchidae) in Rhinella marina (Linnaeus, 1758) (Amphibia: Bufonidae) in Peru. Neotropical Helminthology 11, 405411.Google Scholar
Toledo, GM, Schwartz, HO, Nomura, HAQ, Aguiar, A, Velota, RAMV, Silva, RJ, and Anjos, LA (2017) Helminth community structure of 13 species of anurans from Atlantic rainfores tremnants, Brazil. Journal of Helminthology 92, 438444. doi: 10.1017/S0022149X17000608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torres, P and Puga, S (1996) Occurrence of cystacanths of Centrorhynchus sp. (Acanthocephala: Centrorhynchidae) in toads of the genus Eupsophus in ChileMemorias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz 91, 717719.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Valdujo, PH, Silvano, DL, Colli, G, and Martins, M (2012) Anuran species composition and distribution patterns in Brazilian Cerrado, a Neotropical hotspot. South American Journal of Herpetology 7, 6378. doi: 10.2994/057.007.0209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Cleave, HJ (1923) A key to the genera of AcanthocephalaTransactions of the American Microscopical Society 42, 184191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Velazquez-Urrieta, MY and León-Règagnon, V (2018) Helminths of two species of leopard frogs (Amphibia: Ranidae) from Chiapas, Mexico. Comparative Parasitology 85, 141152. doi: 10.1654/1525-2647-85.2.141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. Itamacaoca Protection Reserve – IPR located in the Chapadinha municipality, Maranhão state, Northeastern Brazil.

Figure 1

Table 1. Acanthocephalans and infected hosts from the Itamacaoca Protection Reserve, Maranhão state, Brazil. Specificity index (STD*), prevalence (P %), mean intensity of infection (MII), and number of analysed hosts (N)

Figure 2

Table 2. Locations in South America and respective recorded acanthocephalan taxa in anurans

Figure 3

Figure 2. Records of anuran acanthocephalans identified at least to the genus level in South America.