Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-mzp66 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-06T02:58:18.133Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Reproductive females and young mouflon (Ovis gmelini musimon × Ovis sp.) in poor body condition are the main spreaders of gastrointestinal parasites

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2021

Gilles Bourgoin*
Affiliation:
Laboratoire de parasitologie vétérinaire, Université de Lyon, VetAgro Sup – Campus Vétérinaire de Lyon, 1 avenue Bourgelat, BP 83, F-69280 Marcy l'Etoile, France Laboratoire de Biométrie et Biologie Evolutive, Université de Lyon, Université Lyon 1, CNRS, UMR 5558, F-69622Villeurbanne, France
Elodie Portanier
Affiliation:
Laboratoire de parasitologie vétérinaire, Université de Lyon, VetAgro Sup – Campus Vétérinaire de Lyon, 1 avenue Bourgelat, BP 83, F-69280 Marcy l'Etoile, France Laboratoire de Biométrie et Biologie Evolutive, Université de Lyon, Université Lyon 1, CNRS, UMR 5558, F-69622Villeurbanne, France
Marie-Thérèse Poirel
Affiliation:
Laboratoire de parasitologie vétérinaire, Université de Lyon, VetAgro Sup – Campus Vétérinaire de Lyon, 1 avenue Bourgelat, BP 83, F-69280 Marcy l'Etoile, France Laboratoire de Biométrie et Biologie Evolutive, Université de Lyon, Université Lyon 1, CNRS, UMR 5558, F-69622Villeurbanne, France
Christian Itty
Affiliation:
Office Français de la Biodiversité, Unité Ongulés Sauvages, 5 allée de Bethléem, Z.I. Mayencin, F-38610Gières, France
Jeanne Duhayer
Affiliation:
Laboratoire de Biométrie et Biologie Evolutive, Université de Lyon, Université Lyon 1, CNRS, UMR 5558, F-69622Villeurbanne, France
Slimania Benabed
Affiliation:
Laboratoire de parasitologie vétérinaire, Université de Lyon, VetAgro Sup – Campus Vétérinaire de Lyon, 1 avenue Bourgelat, BP 83, F-69280 Marcy l'Etoile, France Laboratoire de Biométrie et Biologie Evolutive, Université de Lyon, Université Lyon 1, CNRS, UMR 5558, F-69622Villeurbanne, France
Anne Cockenpot
Affiliation:
Laboratoire de parasitologie vétérinaire, Université de Lyon, VetAgro Sup – Campus Vétérinaire de Lyon, 1 avenue Bourgelat, BP 83, F-69280 Marcy l'Etoile, France
Marie-Pierre Callait-Cardinal
Affiliation:
Laboratoire de parasitologie vétérinaire, Université de Lyon, VetAgro Sup – Campus Vétérinaire de Lyon, 1 avenue Bourgelat, BP 83, F-69280 Marcy l'Etoile, France Laboratoire de Biométrie et Biologie Evolutive, Université de Lyon, Université Lyon 1, CNRS, UMR 5558, F-69622Villeurbanne, France
Mathieu Garel
Affiliation:
Office Français de la Biodiversité, Unité Ongulés Sauvages, 5 allée de Bethléem, Z.I. Mayencin, F-38610Gières, France
*
Author for correspondence: Gilles Bourgoin, E-mail: gilles.bourgoin@vetagro-sup.fr

Abstract

Several individual, environmental and parasitic factors can influence the impacts of parasites on host's fitness and on host's ability to transmit these parasites to new hosts. Identifying these factors and the individuals who play a greater role in parasite transmission is of main concern for the development of parasite control strategies. In the present study, we aimed to describe the diversity of gastrointestinal parasites and to identify the individual factors influencing the faecal spreading of parasites in a free-ranging population of Mediterranean mouflon. From the analysis of 433 faecal samples, we found Eimeria spp. and gastrointestinal strongyles (GIS) were the most common parasites (>94%). The faecal oocyst counts of Eimeria spp. were the highest during the first years of life. It was 1.6 times higher in females than in males and 2.5 times higher in individuals in poor than in good body condition. Similarly, the faecal egg count of GIS was higher in females and decreased with age, but only in males. Finally, reproductive females had GIS faecal egg count values 2.6 times higher than non-reproductive females. Management strategies of parasites should thus primarily focus on reproductive females and young individuals in poor body condition as they represent the main contamination source of the environment.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

Gastrointestinal (GI) parasites can give rise to major sub-clinical impacts such as decreased body condition, growth rate, production level and reproduction success, and sometimes to disease or death of their host, in numerous domestic and wild species of vertebrates (Gulland, Reference Gulland1992; Albon et al., Reference Albon, Stien, Irvine, Langvatn, Ropstad and Halvorsen2002; Tompkins et al., Reference Tompkins, Dobson, Arneberg, Begon, Cattadori, Greenman, Heesterbeek, Hudson, Newborn, Pugliese, Hudson, Rizzoli, Grenfell, Heesterbeek and Dobson2002; Craig et al., Reference Craig, Pilkington and Pemberton2006 Taylor et al., Reference Taylor, Coop and Wall2015). They might thus have consequences on host fitness and population dynamics and are major health and economic issues worldwide (Roeber et al., Reference Roeber, Jex and Gasser2013; Karrow et al., Reference Karrow, Goliboski, Stonos, Schenkel and Peregrine2014). The level of parasite infestation in a host population is often heterogeneous, with most of the hosts having weak parasite burdens, while a small proportion of them harbour the majority of parasites (Woolhouse et al., Reference Woolhouse, Dye, Etard, Smith, Charlwood, Garnett, Hagan, Hii, Ndhlovu and Quinnell1997; Wilson et al., Reference Wilson, Bjørnstad, Dobson, Merler, Poglayen, Randolph, Read and Skorping2002). The most parasitized and susceptible hosts strongly contribute to pathogen transmission, especially for digestive parasites emitted into the environment via faeces, because of their high infectiousness (i.e. magnitude of pathogen shedding); one of the three components of the transmission capacity (VanderWaal and Ezenwa, Reference VanderWaal and Ezenwa2016). Individual levels of infestations have been shown to depend on interactions among numerous individual, environmental and parasitical characteristics. Individual characteristics may, for instance, include gender, age, reproductive and social status, genetics or contact rate with others (Body et al., Reference Body, Ferté, Gaillard, Delorme, Klein and Gilot-Fromont2011; Hayward, Reference Hayward2013; Davidson et al., Reference Davidson, Ličina, Gorini and Milner2015; Habig and Archie, Reference Habig and Archie2015; Debeffe et al., Reference Debeffe, Mcloughlin, Medill, Stewart, Andres, Shury, Wagner, Jenkins, Gilleard and Poissant2016; Aleuy et al., Reference Aleuy, Ruckstuhl, Hoberg, Veitch, Simmons and Kutz2018; Portanier et al., Reference Portanier, Garel, Devillard, Maillard, Poissant, Galan, Benabed, Poirel, Duhayer, Itty and Bourgoin2019). Similarly, environmental features, such as resources availability and quality, density of hosts and temperature/humidity (Mbora and McPeek, Reference Mbora and McPeek2009; Body et al., Reference Body, Ferté, Gaillard, Delorme, Klein and Gilot-Fromont2011; Knutie et al., Reference Knutie, Wilkinson, Wu, Ortega and Rohr2017), and parasitical characteristics, such as means of transmission, spatial distribution, co-infections and genetic/virulence (Anderson and Gordon, Reference Anderson and Gordon1982; Telfer et al., Reference Telfer, Birtles, Bennett, Lambin, Paterson and Begon2008; Poulin, Reference Poulin2013), may influence individual levels of infestations. Understanding the individual heterogeneity of infestation and the consequences of parasites on host's health and ability of transmission is thus complex. It is nevertheless of primary importance for pathogen control strategies and long-term management of populations, due to the major negative consequences of parasites on individuals and population dynamics (Smith et al., Reference Smith, Acevedo-Whitehouse and Pedersen2009; Paull et al., Reference Paull, Song, McClure, Sackett, Kilpatrick and Johnson2012; Gervasi et al., Reference Gervasi, Civitello, Kilvitis and Martin2015; VanderWaal and Ezenwa, Reference VanderWaal and Ezenwa2016).

Several mechanisms have been suggested to explain the links between individual characteristics and parasite infestation level. First, because of physiological and behavioural variations occurring between individuals of different ages, age is recognized as one of the main driver of parasite infestation level. Higher levels of infestation are actually often reported in young and old individuals (Santín-Durán et al., Reference Santín-Durán, Alunda, Hoberg and de la Fuente2008; Hayward et al., Reference Hayward, Wilson, Pilkington, Pemberton and Kruuk2009; Body et al., Reference Body, Ferté, Gaillard, Delorme, Klein and Gilot-Fromont2011). One explanation is that age represents a proxy of hosts immune capacities. For instance, in ungulates, the exposure of young immunologically naïve animals to gastrointestinal strongyles (GIS) leads to the progressive mounting of an immune response limiting parasites development and reproduction, in addition to the innate immune response (McRae et al., Reference McRae, Stear, Good and Keane2015). In senescent individuals, these abilities to control parasitism may degrade with the decrease of immune functions, leading to an increase in parasite burdens (Nussey et al., Reference Nussey, Watt, Pilkington, Zamoyska and McNeilly2012; Cheynel et al., Reference Cheynel, Lemaître, Gaillard, Rey, Bourgoin, Ferté, Jégo, Débias, Pellerin, Jacob and Gilot-Fromont2017). The decrease of body condition in senescent individuals might also participate in increasing parasite burden (Mysterud et al., Reference Mysterud, Yoccoz, Stenseth and Langvatn2001; Weladji et al., Reference Weladji, Holand, Gaillard, Yoccoz, Mysterud, Nieminen and Stenseth2010; Nussey et al., Reference Nussey, Coulson, Delorme, Clutton-Brock, Pemberton, Festa-Bianchet and Gaillard2011). Body condition is indeed another important factor determining hosts susceptibility to infection (Beldomenico and Begon, Reference Beldomenico and Begon2010). Several studies thus highlighted higher parasite prevalence and infection intensity in individuals having a poor body condition compared to those of the same age class having a good body condition (e.g. Body et al., Reference Body, Ferté, Gaillard, Delorme, Klein and Gilot-Fromont2011; Davidson et al., Reference Davidson, Ličina, Gorini and Milner2015; Aleuy et al., Reference Aleuy, Ruckstuhl, Hoberg, Veitch, Simmons and Kutz2018). In line with this observation, populations facing poor environmental conditions may suffer from parasitism, and sometimes experience die-off (e.g. Soay sheep Ovis aries; Gulland, Reference Gulland1992; Craig et al., Reference Craig, Pilkington and Pemberton2006). Finally, the sex of individuals might also induce heterogeneity in parasite infestation levels. Sex-biased parasitism has been repeatedly observed in mammal species, and males often harbour higher parasite burden (Poulin, Reference Poulin1996; Klein, Reference Klein2004). This difference between sexes is thought to arise from not only different immune responses, resulting from direct (i.e. genes located on X or Y chromosomes) and indirect (e.g. sexual hormones; Folstad and Karter, Reference Folstad and Karter1992) effects of sex chromosomes, but also from different exposure probabilities to pathogens (Klein, Reference Klein2000; Markle and Fish, Reference Markle and Fish2014). The susceptibility of animals to pathogen infections may also greatly increase during reproductive periods as a consequence of various factors such as the increase of immunosuppressive hormones, stress and a negative energetic balance (Connan, Reference Connan1976; Hayward, Reference Hayward2013). Reproductive females thus commonly shed more parasite eggs (especially strongyles eggs) in their faeces during the periparturient period, in both domestic (Dunsmore, Reference Dunsmore1965) and wild/free-living species (Festa-Bianchet, Reference Festa-Bianchet1989; Wilson et al., Reference Wilson, Grenfell, Pilkington, Boyd, Gulland, Clutton-Brock and Pemberton2004; Leivesley et al., Reference Leivesley, Bussière, Pemberton, Pilkington, Wilson and Hayward2019), compared to non-reproductive females.

In free-living populations, quantifying parasites abundance and infectiousness of parasites at the individual level, and determining the relative importance of individual-related factors on parasite infestation is challenging because accessing to individual measurements from animals of known age is difficult. We thus aimed here at providing a new empirical contribution to this topic by focusing on a free-ranging population of Mediterranean mouflon from southern France with a unique long-term monitoring by capture-mark-recapture (>10 years) of a large number (n = 433) of known-age individuals. Despite the worldwide distribution of the Mediterranean mouflon (Ovis gmelini musimon × Ovis sp., Cassinello, Reference Cassinello2018; Weller, Reference Weller, Nahlik and Uloth2001) and its patrimonial (Chessa et al., Reference Chessa, Pereira, Arnaud, Amorim, Goyache, Mainland, Kao, Pemberton, Beraldi, Stear, Alberti, Pittau, Iannuzzi, Banabazi, Kazwala, Zhang, Arranz, Ali, Wang, Uzun, Dione, Olsaker, Holm, Saarma, Ahmad, Marzanov, Eythorsdottir, Holland, Ajmone-Marsan, Bruford, Kantanen, Spencer and Palmarini2009) and economical values (through hunting activities; Cugnasse, Reference Cugnasse1995), knowledge on the health status and eco-epidemiology of parasitism in this species is sparse and often focus on a low number of individuals, sometimes captive (e.g. Meana et al., Reference Meana, Luzón-Peña, Santiago-Moreno, De Bulnes and Gómez-Bautista1996; Magi et al., Reference Magi, Bertani, Dell'Omodarme, Prati and Poglayen2005; Balicka-Ramisz et al., Reference Balicka-Ramisz, Laurans, Jurczyk, Kwita and Ramisz2017; but see, e.g. Hille, Reference Hille2003; Portanier et al., Reference Portanier, Garel, Devillard, Maillard, Poissant, Galan, Benabed, Poirel, Duhayer, Itty and Bourgoin2019). In addition, continental populations of Mediterranean mouflon originate from the threatened and protected Corsican and Sardinian mouflon (Ovis gmelini musimon; e.g. European Habitat Directive Annexes II and IV), in which parasitism has been poorly studied (but see e.g. Deméautis, Reference Deméautis1981, Reference Deméautis1985; Poglayen et al., Reference Poglayen, Urbani, Modugno, Scala, Giannetto and Rossi2018). Our study thus also aimed at gathering knowledge about host–parasites relationship that could serve conservation of natural protected mouflon populations present on Mediterranean islands.

Using faecal samples, we first aimed to describe the diversity in GI parasites. Since they were the most abundant, investigations of the links between individual factors and parasite abundance were performed focusing on strongyles (GIS) and Eimeria spp. These parasites classes are also the most common classes of GI parasites in ruminants (Samuel et al., Reference Samuel, Pybus and Kocan2001; Taylor et al., Reference Taylor, Coop and Wall2015) and their abundance in faeces is known to be a good proxy of infectiousness and correlated with actual abundance or clinical expression in sheep (Cabaret et al., Reference Cabaret, Gasnier and Jacquiet1998; Chartier and Paraud, Reference Chartier and Paraud2012). We first expected a higher parasitism in young individuals as compared to mature individuals, as a consequence of their naïve immune status (McRae et al., Reference McRae, Stear, Good and Keane2015), and in males than in females (Poulin, Reference Poulin1996; Klein, Reference Klein2004), as a consequence of sex chromosomes and behaviour effects, and as previously observed in feral sheep (Soay sheep, Wilson et al., Reference Wilson, Grenfell, Pilkington, Boyd, Gulland, Clutton-Brock and Pemberton2004; Craig et al., Reference Craig, Pilkington and Pemberton2006). Second, in this population experiencing marked density-dependent effects on individual body mass (Garel et al., Reference Garel, Cugnasse, Maillard, Gaillard, Hewison and Dubray2007), we expected body condition to be related to parasite resistance and thus infestation level (Beldomenico et al., Reference Beldomenico, Telfer, Gebert, Lukomski, Bennett and Begon2008). More specifically, we expected to observe a higher parasitism in individuals with poor body condition as compared to individuals in good body condition (e.g. Body et al., Reference Body, Ferté, Gaillard, Delorme, Klein and Gilot-Fromont2011; Aleuy et al., Reference Aleuy, Ruckstuhl, Hoberg, Veitch, Simmons and Kutz2018). Similarly, due to the high energetic investment and the immunodepression occurring during the end of gestation – early lactation period (Lloyd, Reference Lloyd1983; Taylor et al., Reference Taylor, Coop and Wall2015; Carrau et al., Reference Carrau, Perez, Silva, Macías, Martínez-Carrasco, Taubert, Hermosilla and de Ybáñez2016), we expected higher parasite burden in reproductive females as compared to non-reproductive females and males.

Material and methods

Study area and species

The studied Mediterranean mouflon population inhabited the Caroux-Espinouse massif (43°38′N, 2°58′E, 17 000 ha, 150–1124 m a.s.l.), in southern France. This middle mountain area is composed of high plateaus separated by deep valleys. Summer are hot and dry [mean ± s.d. daily temperature = 16.4 ± 3.6°C and mean ± s.d. cumulative precipitation = 178.4 ± 68.5 mm in June–August 2010–2017; Meteo France weather station of Fraïsse-Murat (1041 m a.s.l., 13 km from the study area)], autumns wet (mean ± s.d. cumulative precipitation = 493.2 ± 161.8 mm in September–November 2010–2017) and winter fairly cold (mean ± s.d. daily temperature = 2.2 ± 4.1°C in December–February 2010–2018), with few days of snow fall. The vegetation is mostly composed of coniferous (Pinus sylvestris, P. nigra, Picea abies) and deciduous (beech Fagus sylvatica, chestnut trees Castanea sativa and evergreen oak Quercus ilex) forests, grass-rich areas [pastures, meadows and artificial cultures devoted to wildlife (Brachypodium sylvaticum, Festuca rubra, F. paniculata, F. ovina, Carex sp.); Baudière, Reference Baudière1970] and moorlands (heather Erica cinerea, Calluna vulgaris, blueberry Vaccinium myrtillus, broom Cytisus oromediterraneus, C. scoparius and fern Pteridium aquilinum), while rocky areas are mostly present on slopes (see Marchand et al., Reference Marchand, Garel, Bourgoin, Dubray, Maillard and Loison2015 for a detailed description).

Mediterranean mouflon is a gregarious species with a strong segregation between sexes occurring most of the year (Bourgoin et al., Reference Bourgoin, Marchand, Hewison, Ruckstuhl and Garel2018). Adult males and females have a body mass dimorphism of 40.1% [mean body mass in spring-summer (2002–2019 period): 24.5 ± 4.1 kg (⩾2 years old; n = 683) and 34.4 ± 5.5 kg (⩾4 years old; n = 222) for females and adult males, respectively]. Rut occurs from mid-October to December with the highest rut activity from November to mid-December (Bon et al., Reference Bon, Dardaillon and Estevez1993). Females ⩾2 years old give birth most of the time to one lamb (twinning rate <3%; Garel et al., Reference Garel, Cugnasse, Gaillard, Loison, Gibert, Douvre and Dubray2005) after 5 months of gestation, from late March to late May, with a peak of birth in April (Bon et al., Reference Bon, Dardaillon and Estevez1993).

Sample and data collection

Mouflon were baited with salt and captured during spring-summer (end of April to mid-July) from 2010 to 2019. For each individual, sex, live body weight and metatarsus length were recorded, and faecal samples were collected in the rectum for parasitological analyses. Only individuals of known age were included in the analyses, i.e. all males for which exact age can be determined by counting the horn growth annuli (Geist, Reference Geist1966) and females first captured at ⩽3 years old for which exact age can be estimated by counting the number of permanent incisors (Rieck, Reference Rieck1975).

Among sexually mature females (i.e. ⩾2 years old; Garel et al., Reference Garel, Cugnasse, Gaillard, Loison, Gibert, Douvre and Dubray2005), females were considered as reproductively active when observed pregnant, lactating or with a lamb at heel during capture, and/or when observed in the field at least twice with a lamb at heel from April to July. On the opposite, non-lactating females when captured, and without a lamb at heel when observed in the field from April to July, were considered as non-reproductively active females. An undetermined reproductive status was attributed to females for which the reproductive status was uncertain during capture and field observations, and to non-lactating females during capture but seen only once with a lamb at heel in the field.

Parasitological data

Faecal samples were stored at +4°C after sampling and sent to the parasitology laboratory of VetAgro Sup (Lyon, France) for analysis. A first macroscopical examination was done to detect potential presence of mature proglottids of Moniezia spp. We then performed parasite isolation and count using a modified McMaster protocol proposed by Raynaud et al. (Reference Raynaud, William and Brunault1970) with a solution of zinc sulphate (ZnSO4, density = 1.36). For each sample, we mixed 1–5 g of faeces in 14–70 mL of zinc sulphate (1/15 dilution). We then homogenized the solution and sampled 1 mL that was loaded on a McMaster slide with two chambers. After waiting a few minutes to allow eggs and oocysts to float at the surface of each chamber, we counted the number of parasite propagules inside the grid of each chamber (volume under grid of 0.15 mL; quantitative examination). We also filled a 14 mL tube with the remaining solution until we had a meniscus, and then placed a coverslip on the tube. After centrifugation (5 min at 1200 rpm), we recovered the coverslip and placed it on a microscope slide before to seek with a microscope (×40–400) for the presence of parasite propagules (‘control slide’; qualitative examination). The sensitivity of the McMaster is theoretically of 50 eggs/oocysts per gram (epg/opg) of faecal matter. We attributed the value of 25 epg/opg for parasites with no egg/oocyst observed on the McMaster slide, but at least one egg/oocyst observed on the control slide. Faecal count was performed for Eimeria spp. (Protozoa – Coccidia), GI strongyles (GIS; Nematoda), Nematodirus spp. (GI Nematoda; counted since 2014), Trichuris spp. (Nematoda), Moniezia spp. (Cestoda), Fasciola hepatica and Dicrocoelium dendriticum (Trematoda). For Giardia spp. (Protozoa; counted since 2011), we recorded their absence or presence (qualitative measure).

Statistical analyses

Faecal eggs counts (FEC) and faecal oocysts counts (FOC) tend to decrease as the time elapsed between faeces collection (i.e. sampling date) and coproscopic analyses increases (Drimtzia and Papadopoulos, Reference Drimtzia and Papadopoulos2016; Portanier et al., Reference Portanier, Garel, Devillard, Maillard, Poissant, Galan, Benabed, Poirel, Duhayer, Itty and Bourgoin2019), but the date in which coproscopic analyses were performed was nevertheless not available for all the samples. During the study period, the number of persons available to analyse the faecal samples varied. While between 2010 and 2015 only one person processed the samples, two persons did it between 2016 and 2019, allowing to significantly reduce the delay between the reception of samples and the coproscopic analyses. The initial dataset (n = 736; Table 1) was therefore divided in these two separate periods. For each period, we extrapolated the missing date of coproscopic analysis (n = 144/582 and n = 27/154 for periods 1 and 2, respectively) using the mean delay between the reception and analysis observed for samples for which both dates were available.

Table 1. Description of the data selected for analyses. Values correspond to the number of faecal samples analysed by age/sex category.

a Data selected for analyses included ⩾1-year-old individuals (see Materials and Methods), with known age, sex, body mass and metatarsus length.

b Data selected for testing the influence of the reproductive status of females included only ⩾2-year-old females with known reproductive status.

In subsequent analyses, only individuals from 1 year of age onwards with known sex, age, body mass and metatarsus length were considered (Table 1). Indeed, newborn lambs are mostly suckling milk and are therefore poorly exposed to free-living infective stages of parasites on the soil. In addtion, prepatent period of parasites may last several weeks (2–3 weeks for most GIS; Taylor et al., Reference Taylor, Coop and Wall2015). These two components have been found to generate high differences in fecal parasite counts between animals of few weeks or few months of age (e.g. Wilson et al., Reference Wilson, Grenfell, Pilkington, Boyd, Gulland, Clutton-Brock and Pemberton2004; Ozdal et al., Reference Ozdal, Tanritanir, Goz, Deger and Kozat2009). These marked differences cannot be controlled for without an accurate age estimate for first year animals (e.g. number of weeks since birth). However, this information was lacking here (we had no criteria to estimate age of lambs when captured) and we thus chose to remove lambs from our analysis. Very old individuals aged 10 years and older (14 females, 9 males) were grouped in a single class ‘10+’.

In order to assess the influence of age, body condition and sex on the parasitism of mouflon, we used linear mixed models. Indeed, some individuals (see Results) were sampled more than once during the study period which encompassed several years. The individual and yearly observations were thus expected to be correlated. We therefore used mixed models specifically designed to deal with such non-independent data, and explicitly took into account repeated measures by considering the individual identity and year of sampling as random effects. Alternative approach consisting of sampling randomly one observation for each individual would have led to strongly reduce the size of the dataset (by 24%) and, concomitantly, statistical power to detect some effects. Since they were the two most prevalent parasites in this population (see Results and Table 2) and may affect the health and the fitness of their host (Gulland, Reference Gulland1992; Taylor et al., Reference Taylor, Coop and Wall2015), our analyses focused on the FOC of Eimeria spp. and the FEC of GIS. In all analyses, FOC and FEC were log-transformed [log(FOC/FEC + 25)] to fit with a normal distribution and for stabilizing variance. Using the repeated measurements made on some individuals, we computed the intra-class correlation coefficients (Burdick et al., Reference Burdick, Quiroz and Iyer2006) to assess the repeatability of FOC/FEC, considering individual identity as a random effect (but without controlling for sampling design and individual factors – see below).

Table 2. Apparent prevalence and intensity values of propagules from the different parasite species observed on coproscopical examination of faeces from Mediterranean mouflon in the Caroux-Espinouse, France, in 2010–2019.

a 2014–2019 period.

b Only observed on control slide (i.e. <50 epg, noted 25).

c Abundance is not interpretable in these species, due to their intermittent elimination of proglottids containing the eggs.

d Not measured in 2010.

We tested effects of individual characteristics on mouflon parasitism while controlling for sampling design by using a two-step approach. In the first step, we tested for factors related to how faecal samples are sampled and that may potentially influence parasites burden measurements. According to the seasonality of parasitism (Wilson et al., Reference Wilson, Grenfell, Pilkington, Boyd, Gulland, Clutton-Brock and Pemberton2004; Magi et al., Reference Magi, Bertani, Dell'Omodarme, Prati and Poglayen2005; Balicka-Ramisz et al., Reference Balicka-Ramisz, Laurans, Jurczyk, Kwita and Ramisz2017), we expected to observe an influence of the sampling date on FEC and FOC and thus included the day of year of sampling in models (sampling date). We also tested for an influence of the time elapsed between faeces collection and coproscopic analyses (delay) (Drimtzia and Papadopoulos, Reference Drimtzia and Papadopoulos2016; Portanier et al., Reference Portanier, Garel, Devillard, Maillard, Poissant, Galan, Benabed, Poirel, Duhayer, Itty and Bourgoin2019). Only samples with a delay ⩽30 days were considered in the analyses. For each variable (delay and sampling date), we tested for linear and quadratic relationships. Models were compared with the Akaike's Information Criterion corrected for small sample size (AICc; Burnham and Anderson, Reference Burnham and Anderson2002). All the sampling variables included in the models within ΔAICc < 2 as compared to the best model (i.e. with the lowest AICc) were kept as correcting factors in subsequent analyses.

In the second step, we tested for the influence of the individual variables [i.e. sex, body condition (linear) and age (linear and quadratic)] on mouflon parasitism. In this set of models, body condition of individuals was characterized by computing the scaled mass index (SMI; Peig and Green, Reference Peig and Green2009, Reference Peig and Green2010), using values of body mass and metatarsus length. The SMI aims to standardize the body mass values to a same body size, considering allometric relationship. We computed the SMI separately for each sex due to marked sexual dimorphism in this species (Garel et al., Reference Garel, Cugnasse, Maillard, Gaillard, Hewison and Dubray2007). Since the high investment in reproduction of females ⩾2 years old should influence the FOC/FEC (see below), two-way interactions between age and sex were included. Model selection was performed by comparing all the models including the different combination of variables. We retained the model with the lowest AICc value, and when two or more competing models had a ΔAICc < 2, we retained the simplest model according to the parsimony rule (Burnham and Anderson, Reference Burnham and Anderson2002). For each model set (controlling for sampling design and testing for individual characteristics), we also computed AICc weights to measure the relative likelihood of each model to be the best given the data and the set of candidate models (Burnham and Anderson, Reference Burnham and Anderson2002). We assessed the goodness-of-fit of the selected models by computing the conditional (R 2c; total variance explained by the model) and the marginal (R 2m; variance explained only by the fixed effects) R 2 and by plotting residuals.

Finally, since reproductively active females are expected to shed more parasite propagules in their faeces during the periparturient period (‘periparturient rise’; Dunsmore, Reference Dunsmore1965; Festa-Bianchet, Reference Festa-Bianchet1989; Wilson et al., Reference Wilson, Grenfell, Pilkington, Boyd, Gulland, Clutton-Brock and Pemberton2004), we performed a likelihood ratio test (LRT; χ 2 test) to test for the influence of the reproductive status of females (reproductive vs non-reproductive, see above) on FOC and FEC using the previously selected models for FOC and FEC on a data subset of sexually mature females (i.e. ⩾2 years old; Table 1).

At each step of the analyses, all continuous predictors were centred and scaled (mean = 0, s.d. = 1) so that their regression coefficient can be directly compared to assess the relative magnitude of their effect. All analyses and model plots were performed using libraries lme4 (Bates et al., Reference Bates, Mächler, Bolker and Walker2015), lmerTest (Kuznetsova et al., Reference Kuznetsova, Brockhoff and Christensen2017), MuMIn (Barton and Barton, Reference Barton and Barton2019) and visreg (Breheny and Burchett, Reference Breheny and Burchett2017) in R 4.0.0 (R Core Team, 2020).

Results

From 736 analysed faecal samples, 231 and 202 coproscopic analyses performed on 160 and 169 females and males, respectively, met the data quality and availability requirements (e.g. known age, ⩾1 year old, body mass, metatarsus length, delay between field sampling and lab analysis ⩽30 days, see Materials and Methods) and were thus considered in subsequent analyses (Table 1). Most of the females were captured once (n = 109), 37 were captured twice, 9 three times, 4 four times and 1 five times. Less males were trapped several times with 137 males captured only once, 31 twice and 1 three times. The median day of sampling was the day 139 of the year corresponding to the 19 May (25 April; 3 July)95%CI. The median delay between sampling and coproscopic analyses was 14 days (4; 27)95%CI.

The vast majority of mouflon were parasitized by Eimeria spp. and GIS [prevalence = 99.8% (98.7%; 100%)95%CI and 94.7% (92.1%; 96.6%)95%CI, respectively], with median intensity (i.e. number of parasites in infested hosts) of 1150 opg [(50; 11 056)95%CI] and 200 epg [(25; 2477)95%CI], respectively. Other parasites were far less often observed (prevalence = 0.5–15.8%) with low intensity (median = 25–75 epg; Table 2). The mean (±s.e.) repeatability was 0.34 ± 0.09 and 0.26 ± 0.09 for log-transformed FOC and FEC, respectively.

Faecal abundance of Eimeria spp.

The baseline model for sampling factors included the sampling date and its quadratic term as well as the delay between sampling and coproscopic analyses (Table S1). Both delay and the sampling date had a negative influence on the FOC, with the sharpest decrease during the first half of the sampling period (end of April – early May; Fig. S1).

The final selected model (the most parsimonious model among the ones with ΔAICc < 2) included, in addition to the previously selected sampling factors, the quadratic influence of age, the sex and the SMI, but no interaction terms (Table 3). The FOC was the highest in young mouflon and decreased with age, especially during the first years of life (Table 4; Fig. 1a). FOC was 1.6 times higher in females than in males, at all ages (Fig. 1a), and between 2.3–2.4 (males) and 2.5–2.6 (females) times higher in individuals in poor (lowest SMI) than in good (highest SMI) body condition (Table 4; Fig. 1b).

Fig. 1. Predicted faecal oocysts counts (FOC) for Eimeria spp. as a function of (a) the age and (b) the scaled mass index (SMI) of males and females mouflon based on the selected model (Table S1 and Table 3. Predictions were computed for null values of scaled delay (scaled number of days) between sampling and coproscopic analyses, and scaled sampling date, and (a) for null value of SMI, or (b) for 4-year-old mouflon. Lines represent predicted values and bands represent the 95% confidence interval. Points represent average partial residuals per (a) age and (b) SMI (values were grouped at 10% quantile intervals), with the size of the dots being proportional to the number of observations. Numbers on the top of the graph are the total number of females and males used to compute average partial residuals.

Table 3. Model selection of mixed-effects models based on corrected Akaike's Information Criterion (AICc) for testing the effects of the individual variables age, sex and scaled-mass index (SMI) on the faecal oocyst/egg count of Eimeria spp. and gastro-intestinal strongyles (FOC and FEC, respectively) in Mediterranean mouflon from the Caroux-Espinouse, France, in 2010–2019.

d.f. are the degree of freedom, weight are the Akaike weights. All models included the individual identity and the year of sampling as random effects, and the factors related to sampling design (EXT) previously selected (sampling date + sampling date2 + delay for FOC, and sampling date + delay for FEC; Table S1). Only the first ranked (ΔAICc <7) and baseline models are presented. The final selected model is shown in bold.

Table 4. Model estimates (β ± s.e.) of the selected models (Table S1 andTable 3) testing the influence of age, sex (F: females, M: males) and scaled mass index (SMI; centred and scaled for each sex) on the faecal oocyst/egg count of Eimeria spp. and gastro-intestinal strongyles (FOC and FEC, respectively) in Mediterranean mouflon from the Caroux-Espinouse, France, in 2010–2019.

Models included the individual identity and the year of sampling as random effects, and the factors related to sampling design previously selected (sampling date + sampling date2 + delay for FOC, and sampling date + delay for FEC, with sampling date and delay centred and scaled; Table S1). R 2m and R 2c are the marginal and conditional variance of the model, respectively.

*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01 and ***P < 0.001.

Faecal abundance of GIS

The sampling date and the delay between sampling and coproscopic analyses had linear negative influences on the FEC (Table S1; Fig. S2) and were included as correcting factors in the next models. Final model selection gave strong support to the model including the quadratic effect of age in interaction with sex (AICc weight = 0.545). We observed a quadratic decrease of FEC with age for males, with a marked decrease during the first years of life. For females, it tends to remain high and stable throughout life (Table 4; Fig. 2). FEC were not different between sexes in young individuals according to the model, while it reached a maximum difference of four times higher FEC in adult females than in adult males of 6 and 7 years of age. The second best model had also a good support (AICc weight = 0.400) and included a negative influence of the SMI as reported for FOC (β = −0.068 ± 0.056; P = 0.224). According to this model, FEC were 1.5 (females) and 1.5–1.6 (males) times higher in individuals in poor (lowest SMI) than in good (highest SMI) body condition.

Fig. 2. Predicted faecal egg count (FEC) for gastro-intestinal strongyles as a function of the age of males and females mouflon based on the selected model (Table S1 and Table 3). Predictions were computed for null values of scaled delay (scaled number of days) between sampling and coproscopic analyses and scaled sampling date. See Fig. 1 for details.

Reproductive status of females

We evaluated the effect of reproductive status of females by including this factor in baseline models built from covariates previously identified as influencing FOC and FEC in females (Tables 3 and 4). Analyses were restricted to a subset of data including only females ⩾2 years old (n = 179) with known reproductive status (n = 171 data from 120 females, including 144 reproductive and 27 non-reproductive statuses; Table 1). Age was entered in the baseline model for FOC as a three-level factor (2, 3 and ⩾4 years old), instead of as a continuous covariate, because almost all ⩾4-year-old females were reproductively active [92.4% (n = 97/105)]. The reproductive status of females did not influence the FOC (LRT χ 2 = 0.0006, d.f. = 1, P = 0.980), but the FEC was 2.5–2.7 times higher (β = 0.837 ± 0.257, P = 0.001) in reproductive than in non-reproductive females (LRT χ 2 = 524.6, d.f. = 1, P = 0.001).

Discussion

The objectives of the present study were to gain knowledge on GI parasitism in mouflon and on the individual characteristics determining the heterogeneity of infestation and infectiousness, since it is of prime importance for long-term management of populations (Paull et al., Reference Paull, Song, McClure, Sackett, Kilpatrick and Johnson2012; Gervasi et al., Reference Gervasi, Civitello, Kilvitis and Martin2015; VanderWaal and Ezenwa, Reference VanderWaal and Ezenwa2016). Studying wild Mediterranean mouflon, we highlighted that Eimeria spp. and GIS were the most prevalent while other parasites were present in <16% of the individuals with low values of faecal egg count. We thus focused on these two groups of parasites to investigate the factors determining parasite burdens and shedding. For all sex – group of parasites combination, there was a significant decrease of the propagule excretion from May to July and with age, except for GIS in females. Individuals in good body condition had lower values of faecal excretion than individuals in poor body condition. Finally, females had higher values of faecal excretion of both Eimeria spp. and GIS than males, with GIS excretion remaining high and stable with age and higher in reproductive than in non-reproductive females. As a consequence, young mouflon, individuals in poor body condition and females with a lamb at heels are the main spreaders of parasite propagules in this population during the spring−early summer period.

Age had a strong negative influence on both FEC/FOC for males and on FOC for females. Young individuals (1–2 years old) of both sexes were the main source of environmental contamination by parasites. Similar effects of young age have been reported elsewhere for several host–parasite systems (e.g. females Soay sheep – GIS, Wilson et al., Reference Wilson, Grenfell, Pilkington, Boyd, Gulland, Clutton-Brock and Pemberton2004; roe deer Capreolus capreolus – GIS and Trichuris sp., Body et al., Reference Body, Ferté, Gaillard, Delorme, Klein and Gilot-Fromont2011; feral horses – GIS, Debeffe et al., Reference Debeffe, Mcloughlin, Medill, Stewart, Andres, Shury, Wagner, Jenkins, Gilleard and Poissant2016), including eimerian infections (e.g. gemsbok Oryx gazelle & blue wildebeest Connochaetes taurinus, Turner and Getz, Reference Turner and Getz2010). Such negative relationship during the first years of life and the relative stability afterwards can be explained by the acquisition of immunity; juveniles being immunologically naïve and immune response reaching its maximum for adults which have been exposed to more infections during their life (Wilson et al., Reference Wilson, Bjørnstad, Dobson, Merler, Poglayen, Randolph, Read and Skorping2002; Turner and Getz, Reference Turner and Getz2010; Body et al., Reference Body, Ferté, Gaillard, Delorme, Klein and Gilot-Fromont2011). The decrease of parasite load with age could also partly result from a higher mortality of highly susceptible and infected young individuals leading to a higher proportion of resistant adult individuals (viability selection; Monaghan et al., Reference Monaghan, Charmantier, Nussey and Ricklefs2008; Benavides et al., Reference Benavides, Huchard, Pettorelli, King, Brown, Archer, Appleton, Raymond and Cowlishaw2012; Debeffe et al., Reference Debeffe, Mcloughlin, Medill, Stewart, Andres, Shury, Wagner, Jenkins, Gilleard and Poissant2016).

Such differential mortality between individuals of different age classes might also explain why we did not detect an increase of parasitism in old individuals. Indeed, parasitism is expected to increase in old individuals as a consequence of immunosenescence (i.e. decreased immunocompetence; e.g. red deer: Santín-Durán et al., Reference Santín-Durán, Alunda, Hoberg and de la Fuente2008; roe deer: Body et al., Reference Body, Ferté, Gaillard, Delorme, Klein and Gilot-Fromont2011; Cheynel et al., Reference Cheynel, Lemaître, Gaillard, Rey, Bourgoin, Ferté, Jégo, Débias, Pellerin, Jacob and Gilot-Fromont2017; Soay sheep: Hayward et al., Reference Hayward, Wilson, Pilkington, Pemberton and Kruuk2009; Froy et al., Reference Froy, Sparks, Watt, Sinclair, Bach, Pilkington, Pemberton, McNeilly and Nussey2019). We observed such a trend here, but only for FEC in males. In other sex – group of parasites combination, the immunosenescence pattern in old mouflon might be hidden by a higher mortality of immunosenescent individuals (Froy et al., Reference Froy, Sparks, Watt, Sinclair, Bach, Pilkington, Pemberton, McNeilly and Nussey2019).

Finally, we did not detect any influence of age on FEC <for females. However, in spring, most of the females of 2 years old onwards are reproductively active in our population and, as a consequence, might shed more GIS eggs in their faeces (‘periparturient rise’; see also our results on FEC for reproductive and non-reproductive females and below). This seasonally increase of FEC in females might not allow to detect any influence of age. Further studies outside the gestation–lactating period will thus be necessary to disentangle the influence of reproduction and age in females.

Interactions among body condition, resources, immune function and pathogens are diverse and vary according to host and parasite species (Cressler et al., Reference Cressler, Nelson, Day and McCauley2014). Since immunocompetence of individuals relies in part on nutrients they ingest, well-nourished and in good body condition individuals are expected to be able to better cope with infections, having more resources to allocate to costly immune responses (Chandra, Reference Chandra1996; Beldomenico and Begon, Reference Beldomenico and Begon2010). Parasites can also negatively impact the body condition. Accordingly, in several wild ungulate species, parasite load, estimated either by coproscopic analysis or by autopsy, is often negatively related to body condition (e.g. reindeer Rangifer tarandus, Stien et al., Reference Stien, Irvine, Ropstad, Halvorsen, Langvatn and Albon2002; red deer Cervus elaphus, Irvine et al., Reference Irvine, Corbishley, Pilkington and Albon2006; roe deer, Body et al., Reference Body, Ferté, Gaillard, Delorme, Klein and Gilot-Fromont2011; moose, Davidson et al., Reference Davidson, Ličina, Gorini and Milner2015; feral horses, Debeffe et al., Reference Debeffe, Mcloughlin, Medill, Stewart, Andres, Shury, Wagner, Jenkins, Gilleard and Poissant2016; Dall's sheep Ovis dalli dalli, Aleuy et al., Reference Aleuy, Ruckstuhl, Hoberg, Veitch, Simmons and Kutz2018). In agreement with these previous results, we observed a negative relationship between body condition and parasite load in Mediterranean mouflon, especially for Eimeria spp.

Sex of individuals is also often reported as a factor influencing parasite burden, with males being frequently more susceptible than females to parasite infections in several ungulate species (e.g. Soay sheep, Wilson et al., Reference Wilson, Grenfell, Pilkington, Boyd, Gulland, Clutton-Brock and Pemberton2004; Craig et al., Reference Craig, Pilkington and Pemberton2006; Alpine chamois Rupicapra r. rupicapra, Citterio et al., Reference Citterio, Caslini, Milani, Sala, Ferrari and Lanfranchi2006; roe deer, Body et al., Reference Body, Ferté, Gaillard, Delorme, Klein and Gilot-Fromont2011; Pyrenean chamois Rupicapra pyrenaica pyrenaica, Martínez-Guijosa et al., Reference Martínez-Guijosa, Martínez-Carrasco, López-Olvera, Fernández-Aguilar, Colom-Cadena, Cabezón, Mentaberre, Ferrer, Velarde, Gassó, Garel, Rossi, Lavín and Serrano2015), although opposite results or no difference between sexes have also been reported (e.g. mouflon, Dyk and Chroust, Reference Dyk and Chroust1973; African buffalo Syncerus caffer, Gorsich et al., Reference Gorsich, Ezenwa and Jolles2014). In the present study, and contrary to our expectation, a significantly higher intensity of GIS and Eimeria spp. was observed in females than in males. This result could be related to the sampling period that corresponds to the end of gestation and lactation periods in females (see Material and methods; Garel et al., Reference Garel, Cugnasse, Gaillard, Loison, Gibert, Douvre and Dubray2005). During this period most (>80%) of the females of 2 years old onwards reproduce in our population (see Results and Garel et al., Reference Garel, Cugnasse, Gaillard, Loison, Gibert, Douvre and Dubray2005) and reproductive ewes have been found to have an increased excretion of nematode eggs (e.g. domestic sheep, Dunsmore, Reference Dunsmore1965; bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis, Festa-Bianchet, Reference Festa-Bianchet1989; Soay sheep, Gulland and Fox, Reference Gulland and Fox1992; Leivesley et al., Reference Leivesley, Bussière, Pemberton, Pilkington, Wilson and Hayward2019).

This periparturient rise is mostly explained by a relaxation of immunity, resulting from the increase of immunosuppressive hormones, stress, and a negative energetic balance due to the high energetic costs of gestation and lactation (Connan, Reference Connan1976; Clutton-Brock et al., Reference Clutton-Brock, Albon and Guinness1989; Houdijk, Reference Houdijk2008). Complementary explanations might come from the spatial and social segregation occurring between males and females’ mouflon during the lambing period (Marchand et al., Reference Marchand, Garel, Bourgoin, Dubray, Maillard and Loison2015; Bourgoin et al., Reference Bourgoin, Marchand, Hewison, Ruckstuhl and Garel2018). Reproductive females segregate from other age and sex classes and select areas perceived as safe, likely at the detriment of foraging quality and quantity (Marchand et al., Reference Marchand, Garel, Bourgoin, Dubray, Maillard and Loison2015). This selection of habitat, associated with the elevated costs of lactation, might favour a higher sensitivity to parasites. In addition, maternal groups are generally composed of an adult female, her newborn lamb and a lamb from the previous year (yearling, Bon et al., Reference Bon, Cugnasse, Dubray, Gibert, Houard and Rigaud1991). Since the young individuals are the most sensitive to parasites, they are also super-spreaders that heavily contaminate the environment they share with their mother, increasing her exposure to parasites.

Altogether, these results revealed strong influences of both sampling and individual factors on the magnitude of Eimeria spp. and GIS propagule shedding. While, because of their high infectiousness that contaminates the environment and other sensitive animals, the main contributors to GI parasite transmission at individual level were reproductively active females, young mouflon and individuals in poor body condition; their relative contribution may change between seasons and in the future. Indeed, in the current context of global change, the modification of environmental conditions (e.g. climate and habitat changes; Hoberg et al., Reference Hoberg, Polley, Jenkins and Kutz2008; Mbora and McPeek, Reference Mbora and McPeek2009; Brearley et al., Reference Brearley, Rhodes, Bradley, Baxter, Seabrook, Lunney, Liu and McAlpine2013; Rose et al., Reference Rose, Hoar, Kutz and Morgan2014) might impact numerous factors known to be associated with parasitism. These include, for instance, resource availability, reproduction phenology, individual behaviour, parasite free-living stages survival on the soil, which can modify both hosts (e.g. Vors and Boyce, Reference Vors and Boyce2009; Descamps et al., Reference Descamps, Aars, Fuglei, Kovacs, Lydersen, Pavlova, Pedersen, Ravolainen and Strøm2017) and parasites dynamics (Morgan and van Dijk, Reference Morgan and van Dijk2012; Rose et al., Reference Rose, Hoar, Kutz and Morgan2014, Reference Rose, Wang, van Dijk and Morgan2015) and thus host–parasite interactions (Hoberg et al., Reference Hoberg, Polley, Jenkins and Kutz2008; Mbora and McPeek, Reference Mbora and McPeek2009; Brearley et al., Reference Brearley, Rhodes, Bradley, Baxter, Seabrook, Lunney, Liu and McAlpine2013; Cable et al., Reference Cable, Barber, Boag, Ellison, Morgan, Murray, Pascoe, Sait, Wilson and Booth2017). Researches on the complex and moving host–parasite–environment relationships should be performed to anticipate changes and improve management policies for population health (Sutherst, Reference Sutherst2001).

Supplementary material

The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031182021000329.

Acknowledgements

The authors warmly thank all the professionals from the Office Français de la Biodiversité (formerly Office National de la Chasse et de la Faune Sauvage) and all the trainees for data collection. G. Bourgoin, J. Duhayer, M-T Poirel, S. Benabed and M-P Callait-Cardinal are part of the French Laboratory of Excellence project ECOFECT (ANR-11-LABX-0048). The authors are grateful to the two anonymous reviewers for their help in improving the manuscript.

Author contributions

GB and MG conceived and designed the study; GB, EP, MPCC and MG performed statistical analyses and wrote the article; MTP, CI, JD, SB and AC collected and analysed data.

Financial support

This work was supported by the Office Français de la Biodiversité and VetAgro Sup – LBBE – Université Lyon 1.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical standards

The study of the mouflon population was carried out with the approval of the Préfecture de l'Hérault and the Préfecture de Paris, in agreement with the French environmental code (Art. R421-15 to 421-31 and R422-92 to 422-94-1).

References

Albon, S, Stien, A, Irvine, R, Langvatn, R, Ropstad, E and Halvorsen, O (2002) The role of parasites in the dynamics of a reindeer population. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 269, 16251632.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aleuy, OA, Ruckstuhl, K, Hoberg, EP, Veitch, A, Simmons, N and Kutz, SJ (2018) Diversity of gastrointestinal helminths in Dall's sheep and the negative association of the abomasal nematode, Marshallagia marshalli, with fitness indicators. PLoS One 13, e0192825.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, RM and Gordon, DM (1982) Processes influencing the distribution of parasite numbers within host populations with special emphasis on parasite-induced host mortalities. Parasitology 85, 373398.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Balicka-Ramisz, A, Laurans, Ł, Jurczyk, P, Kwita, E and Ramisz, A (2017) Gastrointestinal nematodes and the deworming of mouflon (Ovis Aries Musimon) from Goleniowska Forest in West Pomerania province, Poland. Annals of Parasitology 63, 2732. doi: 10.17420/ap6301.81.Google ScholarPubMed
Barton, K and Barton, MK (2019). Package ‘MuMIn’: Multi-Model Inference. R package version 1.Google Scholar
Bates, D, Mächler, M, Bolker, B and Walker, S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67, 148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baudière, A (2020) Recherches phytogéographiques sur la bordure méridionale du Massif Central français (Les Monts de l’Espinouse). Thèse de doctorat, Université de Montpellier, France.Google Scholar
Beldomenico, PM and Begon, M (2010) Disease spread, susceptibility and infection intensity: vicious circles? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 25, 2127.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beldomenico, PM, Telfer, S, Gebert, S, Lukomski, L, Bennett, M and Begon, M (2008) Poor condition and infection: a vicious circle in natural populations. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 275, 17531759.Google ScholarPubMed
Benavides, JA, Huchard, E, Pettorelli, N, King, AJ, Brown, ME, Archer, CE, Appleton, CC, Raymond, M and Cowlishaw, G (2012) From parasite encounter to infection: multiple-scale drivers of parasite richness in a wild social primate population. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 147, 5263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Body, G, Ferté, H, Gaillard, J-M, Delorme, D, Klein, F and Gilot-Fromont, E (2011) Population density and phenotypic attributes influence the level of nematode parasitism in roe deer. Oecologia 167, 635646.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bon, R, Cugnasse, J-M, Dubray, D, Gibert, P, Houard, P and Rigaud, P (1991) Le mouflon de Corse. Revue d’Écologie (La Terre et La Vie) 6, 67110.Google Scholar
Bon, R, Dardaillon, M and Estevez, I (1993) Mating and lambing periods as related to age of female mouflon. Journal of Mammalogy 74, 752757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourgoin, G, Marchand, P, Hewison, AM, Ruckstuhl, KE and Garel, M (2018) Social behaviour as a predominant driver of sexual, age-dependent and reproductive segregation in Mediterranean mouflon. Animal Behaviour 136, 87100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brearley, G, Rhodes, J, Bradley, A, Baxter, G, Seabrook, L, Lunney, D, Liu, Y and McAlpine, C (2013) Wildlife disease prevalence in human-modified landscapes: wildlife disease in human-modified landscapes. Biological Reviews 88, 427442.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Breheny, P and Burchett, W (2017) Visualization of regression models using visreg. The R Journal 9, 56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burdick, RK, Quiroz, J and Iyer, HK (2006) The present status of confidence interval estimation for one-factor random models. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 136, 43074325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnham, KP and Anderson, DR (2002) Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach. 2nd Edn. New York, USA: Springer.Google Scholar
Cabaret, J, Gasnier, N and Jacquiet, P (1998) Faecal egg counts are representative of digestive-tract strongyle worm burdens in sheep and goats. Parasite 5, 137142.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cable, J, Barber, I, Boag, B, Ellison, AR, Morgan, ER, Murray, K, Pascoe, EL, Sait, SM, Wilson, AJ and Booth, M (2017) Global change, parasite transmission and disease control: lessons from ecology. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 372, 20160088.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carrau, T, Perez, D, Silva, LM, Macías, J, Martínez-Carrasco, C, Taubert, A, Hermosilla, C and de Ybáñez, RR (2016) Postparturient rise in the excretion of Eimeria Spp. in Manchega dairy sheep. Journal of Veterinary Medicine and Research 3, 1047.Google Scholar
Cassinello, J (2018) Detailed coverage of invasive species threatening livelihoods and the environment worldwide. Retrieved from CABI – Invasive Species Compendium website: https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/71353# (Accessed 14 June 2020).Google Scholar
Chandra, RK (1996) Nutrition, immunity and infection: from basic knowledge of dietary manipulation of immune responses to practical application of ameliorating suffering and improving survival. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 93, 1430414307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chartier, C and Paraud, C (2012) Coccidiosis due to Eimeria In sheep and goats, a review. Small Ruminant Research 103, 8492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chessa, B, Pereira, F, Arnaud, F, Amorim, A, Goyache, F, Mainland, I, Kao, RR, Pemberton, JM, Beraldi, D, Stear, MJ, Alberti, A, Pittau, M, Iannuzzi, L, Banabazi, MH, Kazwala, RR, Zhang, Y, Arranz, JJ, Ali, BA, Wang, Z, Uzun, M, Dione, MM, Olsaker, I, Holm, L-E, Saarma, U, Ahmad, S, Marzanov, N, Eythorsdottir, E, Holland, MJ, Ajmone-Marsan, P, Bruford, MW, Kantanen, J, Spencer, TE and Palmarini, M (2009) Revealing the history of sheep domestication using retrovirus integrations. Science (New York, N.Y.) 324, 532536.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheynel, L, Lemaître, J-F, Gaillard, J-M, Rey, B, Bourgoin, G, Ferté, H, Jégo, M, Débias, F, Pellerin, M, Jacob, L and Gilot-Fromont, E (2017) Immunosenescence patterns differ between populations but not between sexes in a long-lived mammal. Scientific Reports 7, 13700.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Citterio, CV, Caslini, C, Milani, F, Sala, M, Ferrari, N and Lanfranchi, P (2006) Abomasal nematode community in an alpine chamois (Rupicapra r. rupicapra) population before and after a die-off. Journal of Parasitology 92, 918927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clutton-Brock, TH, Albon, SD and Guinness, FE (1989) Fitness costs of gestation and lactation in wild mammals. Nature 337, 260262.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Connan, RM (1976) Effect of lactation on the immune response to gastrointestinal nematodes. The Veterinary Record 99, 476477.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Craig, BH, Pilkington, JG and Pemberton, JM (2006) Gastrointestinal nematode species burdens and host mortality in a feral sheep population. Parasitology 133, 485496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cressler, CE, Nelson, WA, Day, T and McCauley, E (2014) Disentangling the interaction among host resources, the immune system and pathogens. Ecology Letters 17, 284293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cugnasse, J-M (1995) L'animal sauvage peut-il être un atout économique? Bulletin Mensuel de l'Office National de la Chasse 156, 2225.Google Scholar
Davidson, RK, Ličina, T, Gorini, L and Milner, JM (2015) Endoparasites in a Norwegian moose (Alces alces) population – Faunal diversity, abundance and body condition. International Journal for Parasitology: Parasites and Wildlife 4, 2936.Google Scholar
Debeffe, L, Mcloughlin, PD, Medill, SA, Stewart, K, Andres, D, Shury, T, Wagner, B, Jenkins, E, Gilleard, JS and Poissant, J (2016) Negative covariance between parasite load and body condition in a population of feral horses. Parasitology 143, 983–997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deméautis, G (1981) Rapport d’étude sur le mouflon de Corse. Ajaccio, France: Parc Naturel Régional de Corse, 75pp.Google Scholar
Deméautis, G (1985) Eco-épidémiologie parasitaire: éléments d'enquête autour d'un ongulé sauvage Corse, le mouflon (Ovis ammon musimon Schreber, 1782). Bulletin d'informations sur la pathologie des animaux sauvages en France 3, 6582.Google Scholar
Descamps, S, Aars, J, Fuglei, E, Kovacs, KM, Lydersen, C, Pavlova, O, Pedersen, ÅØ, Ravolainen, V and Strøm, H (2017) Climate change impacts on wildlife in a High Arctic archipelago – Svalbard, Norway. Global Change Biology 23, 490502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drimtzia, A and Papadopoulos, E (2016) Reduction rate of nematode egg counts and third-stage larvae development from sheep and goat faeces preserved at 4°C. Journal of the Hellenic Veterinary Medical Society 67, 177182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunsmore, JD (1965) Ostertagia spp. in lambs and pregnant ewes. Journal of Helminthology 39, 159184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dyk, V and Chroust, K (1973) Helminths and coccidia in mouflons of the School Forest District Krtiny near Blansko. Acta Veterinaria. Brno 42, 159173.Google Scholar
Festa-Bianchet, M (1989) Individual differences, parasites, and the costs of reproduction for bighorn ewes (Ovis canadensis). The Journal of Animal Ecology 58, 785795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folstad, I and Karter, AJ (1992) Parasites, bright males, and the immunocompetence handicap. The American Naturalist 139, 603622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Froy, H, Sparks, AM, Watt, K, Sinclair, R, Bach, F, Pilkington, JG, Pemberton, JM, McNeilly, TN and Nussey, DH (2019) Senescence in immunity against helminth parasites predicts adult mortality in a wild mammal. Science (New York, N.Y.) 365, 12961298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garel, M, Cugnasse, J-M, Gaillard, J-M, Loison, A, Gibert, P, Douvre, P and Dubray, D (2005) Reproductive output of female mouflon (Ovis gmelini Musimon × Ovis sp.): a comparative analysis. Journal of Zoology 266, 6571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garel, M, Cugnasse, J-M, Maillard, D, Gaillard, J-M, Hewison, AJ and Dubray, D (2007) Selective harvesting and habitat loss produce long-term life history changes in a mouflon population. Ecological Applications 17, 16071618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geist, V (1966) Validity of horn segment counts in aging bighorn sheep. The Journal of Wildlife Management 30, 634635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gervasi, SS, Civitello, DJ, Kilvitis, HJ and Martin, LB (2015) The context of host competence: a role for plasticity in host–parasite dynamics. Trends in Parasitology 31, 419425.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gorsich, EE, Ezenwa, VO and Jolles, AE (2014) Nematode-coccidia parasite co-infections in African buffalo: epidemiology and associations with host condition and pregnancy. International Journal for Parasitology: Parasites and Wildlife 3, 124134.Google ScholarPubMed
Gulland, FMD (1992) The role of nematode parasites in Soay sheep (Ovis Aries L.) mortality during a population crash. Parasitology 105, 493503.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gulland, FMD and Fox, M (1992) Epidemiology of nematode infections of Soay sheep (Ovis Aries L.) on St Kilda. Parasitology 105, 481492.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Habig, B and Archie, EA (2015) Social status, immune response and parasitism in males: a meta-analysis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 370, 20140109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hayward, AD (2013) Causes and consequences of intra- and inter-host heterogeneity in defence against nematodes. Parasite Immunology 35, 362373.Google ScholarPubMed
Hayward, AD, Wilson, AJ, Pilkington, JG, Pemberton, JM and Kruuk, LEB (2009) Ageing in a variable habitat: environmental stress affects senescence in parasite resistance in St Kilda Soay sheep. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 276, 34773485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hille, G (2003) Untersuchungen zum Endoparasitenbefall des Muffelwildes in Thüringen (Veterinary thesis). Universität Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany. 196 pp.Google Scholar
Hoberg, EP, Polley, L, Jenkins, EJ and Kutz, SJ (2008) Pathogens of domestic and free-ranging ungulates: global climate change in temperate to boreal latitudes across North America. Revue scientifique et technique-Office international des épizooties 27, 511528.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Houdijk, JGM (2008) Influence of periparturient nutritional demand on resistance to parasites in livestock. Parasite Immunology 30, 113121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Irvine, RJ, Corbishley, H, Pilkington, JG and Albon, SD (2006) Low-level parasitic worm burdens may reduce body condition in free-ranging red deer (Cervus elaphus). Parasitology 133, 465475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karrow, NA, Goliboski, K, Stonos, N, Schenkel, F and Peregrine, A (2014) Genetics of helminth resistance in sheep. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 94, 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, SL (2000) The effects of hormones on sex differences in infection: from genes to behavior. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 24, 627638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, SL (2004) Hormonal and immunological mechanisms mediating sex differences in parasite infection. Parasite Immunology 26, 247264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knutie, SA, Wilkinson, CL, Wu, QC, Ortega, CN and Rohr, JR (2017) Host resistance and tolerance of parasitic gut worms depend on resource availability. Oecologia 183, 10311040.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuznetsova, A, Brockhoff, PB and Christensen, RHB (2017) Lmertest package: tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software 82, 126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leivesley, JA, Bussière, LF, Pemberton, JM, Pilkington, JG, Wilson, K and Hayward, AD (2019) Survival costs of reproduction are mediated by parasite infection in wild Soay sheep. Ecology Letters 22, 12031213.Google ScholarPubMed
Lloyd, S (1983) Effect of pregnancy and lactation upon infection. Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology 4, 153176.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Magi, M, Bertani, M, Dell'Omodarme, M, Prati, MC and Poglayen, G (2005) Seasonal egg output of gastro-intestinal parasites in wild ungulates in a Mediterranean area (central Italy). Hystrix, the Italian Journal of Mammalogy 16, 169177.Google Scholar
Marchand, P, Garel, M, Bourgoin, G, Dubray, D, Maillard, D and Loison, A (2015) Coupling scale-specific habitat selection and activity reveals sex-specific food/cover trade-offs in a large herbivore. Animal Behaviour 102, 169187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markle, JG and Fish, EN (2014) SeXX matters in immunity. Trends in Immunology 35, 97104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martínez-Guijosa, J, Martínez-Carrasco, C, López-Olvera, JR, Fernández-Aguilar, X, Colom-Cadena, A, Cabezón, O, Mentaberre, G, Ferrer, D, Velarde, R, Gassó, D, Garel, M, Rossi, L, Lavín, S and Serrano, E (2015) Male-biased gastrointestinal parasitism in a nearly monomorphic mountain ungulate. Parasites & Vectors 8, 165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mbora, DNM and McPeek, MA (2009) Host density and human activities mediate increased parasite prevalence and richness in primates threatened by habitat loss and fragmentation. Journal of Animal Ecology 78, 210218.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McRae, KM, Stear, MJ, Good, B and Keane, OM (2015) The host immune response to gastrointestinal nematode infection in sheep. Parasite Immunology 37, 605613.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meana, A, Luzón-Peña, M, Santiago-Moreno, J, De Bulnes, A and Gómez-Bautista, M (1996) Natural infection by gastrointestinal and bronchopulmonary nematodes in mouflons (Ovis musimon) and their response to netobimin treatment. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 32, 3943.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Monaghan, P, Charmantier, A, Nussey, DH and Ricklefs, RE (2008) The evolutionary ecology of senescence. Functional Ecology 22, 371378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, E and van Dijk, J (2012) Climate and the epidemiology of gastrointestinal nematode infections of sheep in Europe. Veterinary Parasitology 189, 814.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mysterud, A, Yoccoz, NG, Stenseth, NC and Langvatn, R (2001) Effects of age, sex and density on body weight of Norwegian red deer: evidence of density-dependent senescence. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 268, 911919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nussey, DH, Coulson, T, Delorme, D, Clutton-Brock, TH, Pemberton, JM, Festa-Bianchet, M and Gaillard, J-M (2011) Patterns of body mass senescence and selective disappearance differ among three species of free-living ungulates. Ecology 92, 19361947.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nussey, DH, Watt, K, Pilkington, JG, Zamoyska, R and McNeilly, TN (2012) Age-related variation in immunity in a wild mammal population. Aging Cell 11, 178180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ozdal, N, Tanritanir, P, Goz, A, Deger, S and Kozat, S (2009) Parasitic protozoans (Eimeria, Giardia, and Cryptosporidium) in lambs with diarrhea in the Van province (Turkey). Bulletin Veterinary Institute in Pulawy 53, 4751.Google Scholar
Paull, SH, Song, S, McClure, KM, Sackett, LC, Kilpatrick, AM and Johnson, PTJ (2012) From superspreaders to disease hotspots: linking transmission across hosts and space. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 10, 7582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peig, J and Green, AJ (2009) New perspectives for estimating body condition from mass/length data: the scaled mass index as an alternative method. Oikos 118, 18831891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peig, J and Green, AJ (2010) The paradigm of body condition: a critical reappraisal of current methods based on mass and length. Functional Ecology 24, 13231332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poglayen, G, Urbani, L, Modugno, F, Scala, A, Giannetto, S and Rossi, L (2018) The Italian mouflon (Ovis musimon): a brief history of its parasites in the last 45 years. Research Journal of Zoology 1, 14.Google Scholar
Portanier, E, Garel, M, Devillard, S, Maillard, D, Poissant, J, Galan, M, Benabed, S, Poirel, M-T, Duhayer, J, Itty, C and Bourgoin, G (2019) Both candidate gene and neutral genetic diversity correlate with parasite resistance in female Mediterranean mouflon. BMC Ecology 19, 12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poulin, R (1996) Sexual inequalities in helminth infections: a cost of being a male? The American Naturalist 147, 287295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poulin, R (2013) Explaining variability in parasite aggregation levels among host samples. Parasitology 140, 541.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raynaud, J-P, William, G and Brunault, G (1970) Etude de l'efficacité d'une technique de coproscopie quantitative pour le diagnostic de routine et le contrôle des infestations parasitaires des bovins, ovins, équins et porcins. Annales de Parasitologie humaine et comparée 45, 321342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2020) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Rieck, W (1975) Muffelwildalter, Brochure de l'association des chasseurs d'Allemagne Fédérale. Bonn, Germany (in German).Google Scholar
Roeber, F, Jex, AR and Gasser, RB (2013) Impact of gastrointestinal parasitic nematodes of sheep, and the role of advanced molecular tools for exploring epidemiology and drug resistance – an Australian perspective. Parasites & Vectors 6, 113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rose, H, Hoar, B, Kutz, SJ and Morgan, ER (2014) Exploiting parallels between livestock and wildlife: predicting the impact of climate change on gastrointestinal nematodes in ruminants. International Journal for Parasitology: Parasites and Wildlife 3, 209219.Google ScholarPubMed
Rose, H, Wang, T, van Dijk, J and Morgan, ER (2015) GLOWORM-FL: a simulation model of the effects of climate and climate change on the free-living stages of gastro-intestinal nematode parasites of ruminants. Ecological Modelling 297, 232245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuel, WM, Pybus, MJ and Kocan, AA (eds) (2001) Parasitic Diseases of Wild Mammals, 2nd Edn. Iowa, USA: Iowa State University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santín-Durán, M, Alunda, JM, Hoberg, EP and de la Fuente, C (2008) Age distribution and seasonal dynamics of abomasal helminths in wild red deer from central Spain. The Journal of Parasitology 94, 10311037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, KF, Acevedo-Whitehouse, K and Pedersen, AB (2009) The role of infectious diseases in biological conservation. Animal Conservation 12, 112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stien, A, Irvine, R, Ropstad, E, Halvorsen, O, Langvatn, R and Albon, S (2002) The impact of gastrointestinal nematodes on wild reindeer: experimental and cross-sectional studies. Journal of Animal Ecology 71, 937945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutherst, RW (2001) The vulnerability of animal and human health to parasites under global change. International Journal for Parasitology 31, 933948.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor, M, Coop, RL and Wall, R (2015) Veterinary Parasitology, 4th Edn. UK: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Telfer, S, Birtles, R, Bennett, M, Lambin, X, Paterson, S and Begon, M (2008) Parasite interactions in natural populations: insights from longitudinal data. Parasitology 135, 767781.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tompkins, DM, Dobson, AP, Arneberg, P, Begon, ME, Cattadori, IM, Greenman, JV, Heesterbeek, JAP, Hudson, PJ, Newborn, D and Pugliese, A (2002) Parasites and host population dynamics. In Hudson, PJ, Rizzoli, A, Grenfell, BT, Heesterbeek, H and Dobson, AP (eds), The Ecology of Wildlife Diseases. New York, USA: Oxford University Press, pp. 4562.Google Scholar
Turner, WC and Getz, WM (2010) Seasonal and demographic factors influencing gastrointestinal parasitism in ungulates of Etosha National Park. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 46, 11081119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
VanderWaal, KL and Ezenwa, VO (2016) Heterogeneity in pathogen transmission: mechanisms and methodology. Functional Ecology 30, 16061622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vors, LS and Boyce, MS (2009) Global declines of caribou and reindeer. Global Change Biology 15, 26262633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weladji, RB, Holand, Ø, Gaillard, J-M, Yoccoz, NG, Mysterud, A, Nieminen, M and Stenseth, NC (2010) Age-specific changes in different components of reproductive output in female reindeer: terminal allocation or senescence? Oecologia 162, 261271.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weller, KE (2001) The status of mouflon (Ovis musimon) in Europe. In Nahlik, A and Uloth, W (eds), Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Mouflon. Sopron, Hungary: University of Sopron, pp. 114140.Google Scholar
Wilson, K, Bjørnstad, ON, Dobson, AP, Merler, S, Poglayen, G, Randolph, SE, Read, AF and Skorping, A (2002) Heterogeneities in macroparasite infections: patterns and processes. In Hudson PJ, Rizzoli A, Grenfell BT, Heesterbeek H and Dobson AP (eds), The Ecology of Wildlife Diseases. New York, USA: Oxford University Press, pp. 644.Google Scholar
Wilson, K, Grenfell, BT, Pilkington, JG, Boyd, HEG and Gulland, FMD (2004) Parasites and their impact. In Clutton-Brock, TH and Pemberton, JM (eds), Soay Sheep: Dynamics and Selection in an Island Population. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 113165.Google Scholar
Woolhouse, ME, Dye, C, Etard, J-F, Smith, T, Charlwood, JD, Garnett, GP, Hagan, P, Hii, JLK, Ndhlovu, PD and Quinnell, RJ (1997) Heterogeneities in the transmission of infectious agents: implications for the design of control programs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 94, 338342.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Table 1. Description of the data selected for analyses. Values correspond to the number of faecal samples analysed by age/sex category.

Figure 1

Table 2. Apparent prevalence and intensity values of propagules from the different parasite species observed on coproscopical examination of faeces from Mediterranean mouflon in the Caroux-Espinouse, France, in 2010–2019.

Figure 2

Fig. 1. Predicted faecal oocysts counts (FOC) for Eimeria spp. as a function of (a) the age and (b) the scaled mass index (SMI) of males and females mouflon based on the selected model (Table S1 and Table 3. Predictions were computed for null values of scaled delay (scaled number of days) between sampling and coproscopic analyses, and scaled sampling date, and (a) for null value of SMI, or (b) for 4-year-old mouflon. Lines represent predicted values and bands represent the 95% confidence interval. Points represent average partial residuals per (a) age and (b) SMI (values were grouped at 10% quantile intervals), with the size of the dots being proportional to the number of observations. Numbers on the top of the graph are the total number of females and males used to compute average partial residuals.

Figure 3

Table 3. Model selection of mixed-effects models based on corrected Akaike's Information Criterion (AICc) for testing the effects of the individual variables age, sex and scaled-mass index (SMI) on the faecal oocyst/egg count of Eimeria spp. and gastro-intestinal strongyles (FOC and FEC, respectively) in Mediterranean mouflon from the Caroux-Espinouse, France, in 2010–2019.

Figure 4

Table 4. Model estimates (β ± s.e.) of the selected models (Table S1 andTable 3) testing the influence of age, sex (F: females, M: males) and scaled mass index (SMI; centred and scaled for each sex) on the faecal oocyst/egg count of Eimeria spp. and gastro-intestinal strongyles (FOC and FEC, respectively) in Mediterranean mouflon from the Caroux-Espinouse, France, in 2010–2019.

Figure 5

Fig. 2. Predicted faecal egg count (FEC) for gastro-intestinal strongyles as a function of the age of males and females mouflon based on the selected model (Table S1 and Table 3). Predictions were computed for null values of scaled delay (scaled number of days) between sampling and coproscopic analyses and scaled sampling date. See Fig. 1 for details.

Supplementary material: PDF

Bourgoin et al. supplementary material

Bourgoin et al. supplementary material 1

Download Bourgoin et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 690.4 KB
Supplementary material: File

Bourgoin et al. supplementary material

Bourgoin et al. supplementary material 2

Download Bourgoin et al. supplementary material(File)
File 191.3 KB