Buscar en
Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad
Toda la web
Inicio Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad Flea diversity and prevalence on arid-adapted rodents in the Oriental Basin, Mex...
Información de la revista
Vol. 86. Núm. 4.
Páginas 981-988 (Diciembre 2015)
Compartir
Compartir
Descargar PDF
Más opciones de artículo
Visitas
671
Vol. 86. Núm. 4.
Páginas 981-988 (Diciembre 2015)
Ecology
DOI: 10.1016/j.rmb.2015.09.014
Open Access
Flea diversity and prevalence on arid-adapted rodents in the Oriental Basin, Mexico
Diversidad de pulgas y prevalencia en roedores de zonas áridas en la Cuenca Oriental, México
Visitas
...
Roxana Acostaa,
Autor para correspondencia
roxana_a2003@yahoo.com.mx

Corresponding author.
, Jesús A. Fernándezb
a Museo de Zoología “Alfonso L. Herrera”, Departamento de Biología Evolutiva, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Apartado Postal 70-399, 04510 México, D.F., Mexico
b Departamento de Recursos Naturales, Facultad de Zootecnia y Ecología, Universidad Autónoma de Chihuahua, Periférico Francisco R. Almada Km. 1, 31453 Chihuahua, Chihuahua, Mexico
Información del artículo
Resumen
Texto completo
Bibliografía
Descargar PDF
Estadísticas
Figuras (1)
Tablas (4)
Table 1. Author, year, and main topic of bibliographic references regarding arid land studies on Mexican fleas.
Table 2. States, sampling localities, vegetation, elevation, and geographic coordinates of sampling areas in the Oriental Basin (OB), Mexico.
Table 3. Fleas from rodent species in the OB, Mexico (Nt=number of total individuals, Ni=number of infested individuals, MA=abundance, P=prevalence %).
Table 4. Fleas species collected in the Oriental Basin, Central Mexico.
Mostrar másMostrar menos
Abstract

Inventorying biodiversity is basic for conservation and natural resources management because constant loss of natural areas increases the need for fast biodiversity inventories. Desert flea diversity and associations are not well known in Mexican deserts, especially in the Oriental Basin (OB). Rodents were trapped in the Oriental Basin through June 2007, 2009, and 2010, and July 2008, in 10 localities. A total of 144 rodents belonging to 10 species were trapped, of which 133 were parasitized by 350 fleas belonging to 18 species. Peromyscus difficilis had the highest parasite richness with 9 species, followed by P. maniculatus with 8. The most abundant fleas in the OB were Polygenis vazquezi, Plusaetis parus, Meringis altipecten, and Plusaetis mathesoni. Seven species were found representing new records for 3 states.

Keywords:
Mammals
Mexican arid zones
Parasites
Siphonaptera
Resumen

Tener un inventario de la diversidad biológica es fundamental para la conservación y gestión de los recursos naturales, ya que la pérdida constante de áreas naturales aumenta la necesidad de realizar inventarios rápidos de la biodiversidad. En particular la diversidad de pulgas y sus asociaciones no son muy conocidas en zonas áridas de los desiertos mexicanos, especialmente en la Cuenca Oriental. Por lo anterior, fueron colectados roedores en 10 localidades de la Cuenca Oriental en junio de 2007, 2009, 2010 y julio de 2008. Se recolectó un total de 144 roedores pertenecientes a 10 especies; 133 estaban parasitados por 350 pulgas pertenecientes a 18 especies. Peromyscus difficilis tuvo la riqueza más alta de pulgas con 9 especies, seguido por P. maniculatus con 8. Las pulgas más abundantes en la Cuenca Oriental fueron Polygenis vazquezi, Plusaetis parus, Meringis altipecten y Plusaetis mathesoni. Se encontraron 7 especies que representan nuevos registros para 3 estados.

Palabras clave:
Mamíferos
Zonas áridas mexicanas
Parásitos
Siphonaptera
Texto completo
Introduction

Inventorying biological diversity is a basic scientific activity, essential for good conservation practices and natural resources management. Financial resources and human efforts dedicated to document biodiversity of a given area ideally promote better conservation activities and policies (Brooks, da Fonseca, & Rodrigues, 2004a, 2004b; Ferrier et al., 2004). Constant loss of natural areas located near cities and drastic changes in land use increase the need for fast biodiversity inventories. An area located in Central Mexico that may vanish in the short term is the Oriental Basin (OB; Hafner & Riddle, 2005).

This region is considered a relict of the Chihuahuan desert and its southern-most extension (Shreve, 1942; Fig. 1). The vegetation is characterized by alkaline grass and thorn scrub in the dry valleys, and coniferous forest in the surrounding mountains (Valdéz & Ceballos, 1997). The OB area has been isolated at least since Pleistocene times, and several endemic mammals can be found here: Cratogeomys fulvescens Merriam, 1895 (Hafner et al., 2005), Peromyscus bullatus Osgood, 1904 (González-Ruíz & Álvarez-Castañeda, 2005), Neotoma nelsoni Goldman, 1905 (Fernández, 2012; González-Ruíz, Ramírez-Pulido, & Genoways, 2006), and Xerospermophilus spilosoma perotensis (Bennett, 1833) (Best and Ceballos, 1995; Fernández, 2012).

Figure 1.

Map of localities in the Oriental Basin in Central Mexico. 1, Chalchicomula de Serna, 3km S Cd. Serdán entronque Cd. Serdán – Esperanza, Dirección Santa Catarina; 2, Guadalupe Victoria, 2km W Guadalupe Victoria; 3, Guadalupe Victoria, 9.6km W Guadalupe Victoria; 4, La Esperanza, 2km W La Esperanza; 5, Oriental, 1km S Oriental; 6, Oriental, 1.5km S Oriental; 7, Quimixtlan, 10km NE Huaxcaleca; 8, San Salvador El Seco, 1km S Coyotepec; 9, El Carmen Tequexquitla, 2.5km El Carmen; 10, Perote, 3km S El Frijol Colorado.

(0,13MB).

Interspecific interactions such as parasitism are considered an important part of biodiversity (Wilson, 1992). Some of the most common mammal parasites are fleas (Insecta: Siphonaptera). Siphonapterans are characterized by the lack of wings, and a buccal apparatus adapted for biting and sucking blood. Their body is small (1–9mm) and laterally compressed, with strong legs and big coxae (Barrera, 1953; Rothschild, 1975).

Fleas are bird and mammal parasites. However, bird fleas represent only 5% of the known flea diversity. Most of the flea species have been found in mammals, and 70% of all fleas have been collected in rodents (Traub, Rothschild, & Haddow, 1983). Usually, when their host dies, fleas leave the body and look for a new host. Many flea species are apparently host specific, whereas others lack a close relationship with a specific host and are able to parasitize several mammal species (Barrera, 1953; Whitaker & Morales-Malacara, 2005).

Parasite conservation may not be a popular topic, but preserving and studying parasite diversity and interactions represent many benefits. Christe, Michaux, and Morand (2006) point out that parasites must be preserved not only for being part of biodiversity, but also for actively modeling community structure and keeping diversity, for being good indicators of ecosystem health by accumulating heavy metals in their tissues, for their use in biomedicine, and because their DNA may provide a biological record of evolutionary dynamics between parasites and hosts.

In Mexico, 163 flea species have been recorded (Salceda-Sánchez & Hastriter, 2006), and recent work raised the number to 172 (Acosta, 2014). However, flea species diversity in Mexico is probably higher, because many large areas like desert regions lack extensive flea inventories and show only scattered records (Gutiérrez-Velázquez, Acosta, & Ortiz, 2006; Ponce & Llorente, 1996; Salceda-Sánchez & Hastriter, 2006).

Arid land studies on Mexican fleas are not abundant, but some of them have documented new species, generated regional checklists, distributional records, taxonomic revisions, and explored co-distributional aspects (Table 1). Only 2 recent publications exist for the study area: Acosta, Fernández, Llorente, and Jimenéz (2008) presented data for 6 and 5 flea species in El Carmen Tequexquitla (Tlaxcala) and La Esperanza (Puebla), respectively; and Falcón-Ordaz, Acosta, Fernández, and Lira-Guerrero (2012) documented ecto- and endo-parasites of 5 rodent species in the OB.

Table 1.

Author, year, and main topic of bibliographic references regarding arid land studies on Mexican fleas.

Author  Year  Topic 
Traub and Hoff  1951  Description of Meringis altipecten 
Holland  1965  Description of Anomiopsyllus durangoensis 
Ayala et al.  1998  First catalog of fleas in Colección del Museo de Zoología (MZFC) with records in some states with desertic zones 
Acosta  2003  Distribution of mammals and 40 taxa of fleas in Querétaro 
Hastriter  2004  Revision of Jellisonia and records in Durango and Guanajuato 
Acosta  2005  Relationship of host–parasite in Querétaro 
Fernández and Acosta  2005  First flea records on Dipodomys nelsoni in Durango 
Acosta, Fernández, and Falcón-Ordaz  2006  Report eight fleas species in Durango and Querétaro 
Salceda-Sánchez and Hastriter  2006  List of Mexican fleas species, including states with desert regions 
Acosta et al.  2008  Second catalog of fleas at the Colección del Museo de Zoología (MZFC) with records of states with desert zones 

The objective of this work was to increase the existing inventory of fleas and rodents in the OB. Based on the specimens collected, mean abundance and prevalence of fleas species were calculated; likewise, their associations with rodent species were analyzed. Furthermore, habitat and host preferences, and host and parasite diversity, were also discussed.

Materials and methods

The OB is an arid or semi-arid region located among the southeastern mountains of the Trans-Mexico Volcanic Axis (TMVA; Fig. 1), between 19°42′00″ and 18°57′00″N, 98°02′24″ and 97°09′00″W. The OB is shared among the states of Puebla, Tlaxcala, and Veracruz, and is a relatively small area (5,000km2 approximately) characterized by grassland, alkaline grassland, thorn scrub and corn fields (Valdéz & Ceballos, 1997).

Rodent sampling was carried out during June 2007, 2009, and 2010, and during July 2008, in 10 localities (Fig. 1; Table 2). Rodents were taken with collecting permits FAUT-0002 and FAUT-0219 granted to F. A. Cervantes and J. J. Morrone, respectively. Mammal specimens were housed at Colección Nacional de Mamíferos (CNMA), Instituto de Biología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), and at the Museum of Natural Science (LSUMZ), Louisiana State University. The collected fleas were housed at Colección de Siphonaptera “Alfonso L. Herrera”, Museo de Zoología (MZFC), Facultad de Ciencias, UNAM.

Table 2.

States, sampling localities, vegetation, elevation, and geographic coordinates of sampling areas in the Oriental Basin (OB), Mexico.

State  Localities  Vegetation  Altitude  Geographic coordinates 
PueblaChalchicomula de Serna, 3km S Cd. Serdán junction Cd. Serdán – Esperanza, direction Santa Catarina  Desert scrub  8,320ft  19°00′32.5″N, 97°33′21.3″
Guadalupe Victoria, 2km W Guadalupe Victoria.  Crop/farming – sandy soil  7,893ft  19°16′49.7″N, 97°22′41.4″
Guadalupe Victoria, 9.6km W Guadalupe Victoria.  Crop/farming – sandy soil  7,874ft  19°18′56.8″N, 97°25′58.4″
La Esperanza, 2km W La Esperanza  Crop/farming – Agave fields  8,349ft  18°50′31.0″N, 97°23′09.1″
Oriental, 1km S Oriental  Desert scrub  7,742ft  19°21′10″N, 97°38′07.8″
Oriental, 1.5km S Oriental.  Desert scrub  7,742ft  19°21′10″N, 97°38′07.8″
Quimixtlan, 10km NE Huaxcaleca.      19°13′59″N, 94°4′46″
San Salvador El Seco, 1km S Coyotepec  Desert scrub  7,988ft  19°00′32.5″N, 97°33′21.3″
Tlaxcala  El Carmen Tequexquitla, 2.5km El Carmen.  Desert scrub  7,801ft  19°21′00.4″N, 97°39′54.5″
Veracruz  Perote, 3km S El Frijol Colorado  Crop/farming  7,988ft  19°34′20.4″N, 97°23′00.7″

Rodents were trapped using standard methods approved by the American Society of Mammalogists (Kelt, Hafner, & The American Society of Mammalogists’ ad hoc Committee for guidelines on handling rodents in the field, 2010; Sikes, Gannon, & the Animal Care and Use Committee of the American Society of Mammalogists, 2011). Sherman traps were baited with oatmeal, and captured rodents were identified in the field or at the laboratory using taxonomic keys (Hall, 1981).

Fleas were collected by brushing every rodent with a toothbrush, and they were subsequently placed in vials filled with 80% ethanol. Siphonapterans were mounted on slides following Smit (1957). Fleas were determined to species level using taxonomic keys by Acosta and Morrone (2003), Barnes, Tipton, and Wildie (1977), Hastriter (2004), Hopkins and Rothschild (1956, 1962, 1966), Linardi and Guimarães (2000), Stark (1958), Traub (1950), and Traub et al. (1983). For each host species the following indices and parameters were calculated: flea species richness (S=number of species), mean abundance (MA=total number of individuals of a parasite species on a host/total number of species, including infested and non-infested species), and prevalence ([P=number of infested animals with 1 or more individuals of a parasite species/total number of examined mammals for that parasite species]*100). The Shannon–Wiener diversity index (H=−∑[pilnpi]) was also calculated for hosts and parasites (Begon, Harper, & Townsend, 1988; Bush, Lafferty, Lotz, & Shostak, 1997).

Results

A total of 144 rodents belonging to 10 species (H=1.450), 4 families (Muridae, Heteromyidae, Sciuridae and Geomyidae), and 6 genera were recorded, of which 133 were parasitized by 350 fleas belonging to S=18 species (H=1.860), 11 genera, and 4 families (Pulicidae, Rhopalopsyllidae, Ctenophthalmidae, and Ceratophyllidae).

Peromyscus difficilis (J. A. Allen, 1891) had the highest parasite richness of S=9, followed by P. maniculatus (Wagner, 1845) with S=8 species. The rodent species with the smallest number of fleas were the fulvous harvest mouse Reithrodontomys fulvescens J. A. Allen, 1894 and the Perote ground squirrel Xerospermophilus spilosoma perotensis with only 1 species each (Table 1).

The most abundant fleas in the OB were Polygenis vazquezi Vargas, 1951, Plusaetis parus (Traub, 1950), Meringis altipectenTraub and Hoff, 1951, and Plusaetis mathesoni (Traub, 1950;Table 3). Differences were found in flea prevalence on rodent species (Table 3). Meringis altipecten (83.3%) on Phillips’ kangaroo rat Dipodomys phillipsii Gray, 1841, P. vazquezi on the Mexican spiny pocket mouse Heteromys irroratus (Gray, 1868) (76.4%), and P. parus (67.6%) on the rock mouse Peromyscus difficilis, show the highest rodent-specific prevalence values, above 50% of prevalence (some species have values of 100% but these were not taken into account by the sample size). The total prevalence value for the OB was 92.3%, meaning that most rodent species harbor at least 1 species of flea. The largest overall prevalence values in fleas in the OB were P. parus (42.36%), P. mathesoni (16.6%), P. mundus (Jordan and Rothschild, 1922) (12.5%), and M. altipecten (11.8%) (Table 4), besides being shared species in 3 states, on the other hand, smallest prevalence values for fleas were Opisocrostis hirsuta Jordan, 1933, Dactylopsylla megasona, Jellisonia (Jellisonia) hayesiTraub, 1950, and Echidnophaga gallinacea (Westwood, 1875), with a value of 0.69% in each case.

Table 3.

Fleas from rodent species in the OB, Mexico (Nt=number of total individuals, Ni=number of infested individuals, MA=abundance, P=prevalence %).

Species of rodents  Nt  Ni  Species of fleas  Nt  MA  P % 
Heteromys irroratus  17  15  Echidnophaga gallinacea  0.117  5.8 
      Polygenis vazquezi  68  76.4 
      Plusaetis parus  0.058  5.8 
Dipodomys phillipsii  12  10  Meringis altipecten  41  2.41  83.3 
      Anomiopsyllus perotensis  1.166  8.3 
      Plusaetis parus  0.083  8.3 
Peromyscus difficilis  68  68  Polygenis vazquezi  0.014  1.4 
      Anomiopsyllus sinuatus  0.0441  2.94 
      Anomiopsyllus perotensis  0.014  1.4 
      Strepsylla villai  0.1029  8.8 
      Jellisonia (Jellisonia) breviloba barrerai  0.014  1.4 
      Jellisonia (Jellisonia) breviloba breviloba  0.0294  1.4 
      Pleochaetis mundus  0.088  7.35 
      Plusaetis mathesoni  34  0.5  29.5 
      Plusaetis parus  95  1.397  67.6 
Peromyscus maniculatus  19  16  Meringis altipecten  0.4210  21.05 
      Jellisonia (Jellisonia) breviloba breviloba  0.157  10.5 
      Jellisonia (Jellisonia) breviloba barrerai  0.0526  5.26 
      Jellisonia (Jellisonia) hayesi  0.0526  5.26 
      Pleochaetis mundus  20  1.526  42.10 
      Plusaetis apollinaris  0.0526  5.26 
      Plusaetis mathesoni  0.0526  5.26 
      Plusaetis parus  0.105  5.26 
Peromyscus levipes  Kohlsia whartoni  100 
      Plusaetis parus  0.5  50 
Peromyscus furvus  Ctenophthalmus micropus  1.5  50 
      Jellisonia (Pleochaetoides) wisemani  0.5  50 
      Pleochaetis mundus  0.5  50 
      Plusaetis apollinaris  100 
Peromyscus sp.  Meringis altipecten     
      Pleochaetis mundus     
      Plusaetis parus     
Reithrodontomys megalotis  Plusaetis mathesoni  13  1.857  28.5 
      Plusaetis parus  0.857  57.14 
Reithrodontomys fulvescens  Plusaetis parus  1.5  100 
Xerospermophilus perotensis  Opisocrostis hirsuta  100 
Cratogeomys fulvescens  Meringis altipecten  100 
      Dactylopsylla megasona  100 
Table 4.

Fleas species collected in the Oriental Basin, Central Mexico.

Species of fleas  Tlaxcala  Veracruz  Puebla  P% 
Pulicidae
Echidnophaga gallinacea      0.69 
Rhopalopsyllidae
Polygenis vazquezi  Xa  9.7 
Ctenophthalmidae
Anomiopsyllus perotensis    Xa  1.38 
Anomiopsyllus sinuatus    Xa  Xa  1.38 
Ctenophthalmus micropus      0.69 
Meringis altipecten  11.8 
Strepsylla villai    Xa    4.16 
Ceratophyllidae
Dactylopsylla megasona    Xa    0.69 
Jellisonia (Jellisonia) breviloba barrerai    2.14 
Jellisonia (Jellisonia) breviloba breviloba      1.38 
Jellisonia (Jellisonia) hayesi      0.69 
Jellisonia (Pleochaetoides) wisemani      0.69 
Kohlsia whartoni      1.38 
Opisocrostis hirsuta      Xa  0.69 
Plusaetis parus  42.36 
Plusaetis mathesoni  16.6 
Plusaetis apollinaris    2.14 
Pleochaetis mundus  12.5 
Total        92.3 

P=prevalence %.

a

New record in the state.

The fleas that were found on most of the hosts were: Plusaetis parus on 7 rodent species (Table 3), followed by P. mundus on 4 species, P. mathesoni, and M. altipecten on 3 species, respectively.

In the OB, 7 species were found representing new records for 3 states, Tlaxcala (1 species), Puebla (3), and Veracruz (3; Table 4).

Discussion

This is one of the first studies on basic parasite ecology in the OB. Previous works in the OB (Acosta & Fernández, 2009; Falcón-Ordaz et al., 2012) reported 11 flea species on 6 rodent species. Here we duplicated host and parasite numbers by visiting more localities, allowing us to have a greater representation of species and a better understanding of interactions inside rodent and parasite communities.

For this work, only the dry valleys of the OB were sampled. However, this area shows habitat variety such as small hills alternated with plains covered by native vegetation or agriculture fields (Valdéz & Ceballos, 1997). This habitat mosaic allows several rodent species and other mammals to live there, as well as their ectoparasites. Flea and rodent diversity was low with values below 2 (Begon et al., 1988).

However, Lareschi, Ojeda, and Linardi (2004) in a desert biome in Argentina, obtained similar values and reported that the diversity of fleas is high. Here we can consider that diversity was higher in fleas than in rodents, probably because fleas are more abundant and diverse in small and medium sized mammals (Krasnov, Shenbrot, Medvedev, Vatschenok, & Khokhlova, 1997), and/or because most fleas are generalists, meaning that 1 flea species may parasitize more than 1 host species (Marshall, 1981; Traub, 1985). Additionally, flea diversity in an area is not determined only by host species, but by environmental parameters inherent to the habitat, that will determine nest and den conditions (temperature, humidity, and construction material; Krasnov et al., 1997). All these characteristics will complete basic flea needs like food, habitat and mating opportunities (Marshall, 1981), favoring flea species and population abundance.

Total flea prevalence for the OB is >90% for rodents, but fleas with the highest prevalence were Plusaetis parus, P. mathesoni, M. altipecten, and Polygenis vazquezi. The first one was found in more than 40% of the rodents collected in the OB. Fleas of the genus Plusaetis are very diverse in Mexico, and very abundant (Ponce & Llorente, 1996) in central and southern parts of the country.

Most of the flea species collected here were previously found in the states forming the OB (Tlaxcala, Puebla, or Veracruz; Acosta et al., 2008; Acosta & Fernández, 2009; Ayala-Barajas, Morales, Wilson, Llorente, & Ponce, 1988; Table 4), but some of the species reported here are new records for Tlaxcala (Polygenis vazquezi), Puebla (Anomiopsyllus perotensisAcosta and Fernández, 2009, A. sinuatusHolland, 1965, and Opisocrostis hirsuta Baker, 1895), and Veracruz (Strepsylla villai Traub and Barrera, 1955, A. sinuatus, Dactylopsylla megasona, and O. hirsuta).

The record of Opisocrostis hirsuta is relevant because it is the first siphonapteran collected on the OB endemic Xerospermophilus spilosoma perotensis (the Perote ground squirrel). Hall and Dalquest (1963) collected flea specimens from this species, but they did not publish their findings. According to Best and Ceballos (1995) there are no ectoparasite record for this taxa. On the other hand, Fernández (2012) recently suggested the inclusion of X. perotensis as a X. spilosoma subspecies. For X. spilosoma there are several flea records (Thrassis pansus (Jordan, 1925), T. fotus (Jordan, 1925), and E. gallinacea; Streubel, 1975; Sumrell, 1949). However, O. hirsuta is not mentioned.

Peromyscus difficilis is an endemic rodent with a wide distribution in Mexico, and fleas from at least 5 families have been collected on this species. However, Polygenis vazquezi is a new record (Fernández, García-Campusano, & Hafner, 2010). Most of the existing records were obtained from the northern part of its distribution (Acosta, 2003, 2005; Acosta et al., 2008; Ayala-Barajas et al., 1988; Barrera, 1953, 1968; Hastriter, 2004; Tipton & Méndez, 1968) and include the following families and species: Ctenophthalmidae: Anomiopsyllus sinuatus, Ctenophthalmus haagiTraub, 1950, C. micropusTraub, 1950 (T. M. Pérez-Ortíz, personal communication), C. pseudagyrtes Baker, 1904, C. tecpin Morrone et al., 2000, Epitedia wenmanni (Rothschild, 1904), Meringis arachis (Jordan, 1929), Stenoponia ponera Traub & Johnson, 1952, Strepsylla minaTraub, 1950, S. taluna Traub & Johnson, 1952, S. villai and S. davisae Traub & Johnson, 1952; Hystricopsyllidae: Atyphloceras tancitari Traub & Johnson, 1952, Hystrichopsylla llorentei Ayala & Morales, 1990, and H. occidentalis Holland, 1949; Ceratophyllidae: Jellisonia brevilobaTraub, 1950, J. grayi Hubbard, 1958, J. hayesiTraub, 1950, J. ironsi (Eads, 1947), J. wisemani Eads, 1951, Kohlsia martini Holland, 1971, K. pelaezi Barrera, 1956, Pleochaetis mundus, P. paramundusTraub, 1950, Plusaetis apollinaris (Jordan & Rothschild, 1921), P. asetus (Traub, 1950), P. aztecus (Barrera, 1954), P. dolens (Jordan & Rothschild, 1914), P. mathesoni, P. sibynus (Jordan, 1925), P. soberoni (Barrera, 1958), and 1 species of the genus Thrassis; Leptopsyllidae: Peromyscopsylla hesperomys (Baker, 1904), and Pulicidae: Echidnophaga gallinacea, and Euhoplopsyllus glacialis (Taschenberg, 1880).

For R. fulvescens, 2 fleas have been recorded: Peromyscopsylla scotti Fox, 1939 and Orchopeas leucopus (Baker, 1904) in Texas (McAllister & Wilson, 1992), and there are records of specimens of the genus Polygenis in Mexico (Petersen, 1978; Spencer & Cameron, 1982). Several fleas have been colleted for the nimble-footed mouse Peromyscus levipes Merriam, 1898 (Acosta, 2003; Whitaker & Morales-Malacara, 2005). Here we found Kholsia warthoni Traub & Johnson, 1952 representing a new record for this rodent.

The flea Dasypsyllus megasoma has only been recorded in Distrito Federal, State of México, and Oaxaca, on Merriam's Pocket gopher (Cratogeomys merriami). Hafner et al. (2005) studied the C. merriami complex and elevated the Oriental basin Pocket Gopher Cratogeomys fulvescens to specific level. Here, we reported for the first time a flea species for C. fulvescens and for the state of Veracruz, being a new host and locality record. The record of Meringis altipecten for C. fulvescens is considered as accidental because this flea has been found mainly on heteromyid rodents, as well as on the genus Polygenis (Whitaker, Wren, & Lewis, 1993). As Marshall (1981) pointed out, flea presence in not common hosts might be due to accidental transference or parasite interchange while visiting the nest or other rodent dens.

In Heteromys irroratus 3 flea species have been reported previously (Hoplopsyllus glacialis Taschenberg 1880, Polygenis gwyni (Fox, 1914), and P. martinezbaezi Vargas, 1951; Eads & Menzies, 1949; Eads, 1950; Genoways, 1973). Another 3 flea species were found for this rodent in the OB. The blackish deer mouse Peromyscus furvus was known for harboring only 1 flea species: Ctenophthalmus pseudagyrtes. Here we reported another 4 distinct flea species (Table 1). Until Jones and Genoways (1975) publication, not a single ectoparasite was known for D. phillipsii. Recently Vargas, Pérez, and Polaco (2009) reported 3 species of acari and here we reported 3 fleas parasitizing D. phillipsii.

On the other hand, the harvest mouse (R. fulvescens), and the Perote ground squirrel (X. spilosoma perotensis) were only parasitized by 1 flea species. However, these records may not be representative because only a few specimens of these rodents were collected. Collection of the Perote ground squirrel was restricted because it is an endangered taxon (Semarnat, 2010), and it is not distributed in every sampled locality.

Fleas were collected in 4 summer seasons, and flea abundance values were high, probably because rodent abundance is high in this season. Particularly, P. difficilis is very abundant, which can explain flea abundance. As mentioned by Morand and Poulin (1998), and Krasnov and Matthee (2010), population density is an important factor influencing dispersion and/or propagation, and distribution of parasites among individuals, as well as parasite specific richness. This fact might explain seasonal abundance. Collecting trips during winter would add valuable information about parasites population behavior.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank J. Falcón and J.C. Windfield for their help during fieldwork. They also thank M. Titulaer and J.J. Morrone for their critical review. Funding for this study was provided by Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Técnología (Grant 200243) and Programa de Apoyo a Proyectos de Investigación e Innovación Tecnológica, UNAM, IN205408 and IN214012. They thank the Museo de Zoología for providing working space, equipment, and supplies.

References
[Acosta, 2003]
R. Acosta.
New records of rodent fleas from Querétaro, Mexico (Siphonaptera).
Zootaxa, 369 (2003), pp. 1-15
[Acosta, 2005]
R. Acosta.
Relación huésped-parásito en pulgas (Insecta: Siphonaptera) y roedores (Mammalia: Rodentia) del estado de Querétaro.
Folia Entomológica Mexicana, 4 (2005), pp. 37-47
[Acosta, 2014]
R. Acosta.
Biodiversidad de Siphonaptera en México.
Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad (Suplem. Biodiversidad de México), 85 (2014), pp. 345-352
[Acosta et al., 2006]
R. Acosta, J.A. Fernández, J. Falcón-Ordaz.
New records of mammal fleas (Siphonaptera) in northern and central Mexico.
Entomological News, 117 (2006), pp. 69-72
[Acosta et al., 2008]
R. Acosta, J.A. Fernández, J. Llorente, M.C. Jimenéz.
Catálogo de pulgas (Insecta: Siphonaptera), Serie de Catálogos del Museo de Zoología “Alfonso L. Herrera” UNAM.
Las Prensas de Ciencias, (2008),
[Acosta and Fernández, 2009]
R. Acosta, J.A. Fernández.
A new species of Anomiopsyllus Baker, 1904 (Insecta: Siphonaptera), and noteworthy records of fleas from Nelson's Woodrat, Neotoma nelsoni (Rodentia: Cricetidae), in the Oriental Basin, México.
Journal of Parasitology, 95 (2009), pp. 532-535
[Acosta and Morrone, 2003]
R. Acosta, J.J. Morrone.
Clave ilustrada para la identificación de los taxones supraespecíficos de Siphonaptera de México.
Acta Zoológica Mexicana Nueva Serie, 89 (2003), pp. 39-53
[Ayala-Barajas et al., 1988]
R. Ayala-Barajas, J.C. Morales, N. Wilson, J.E. Llorente, H.E. Ponce.
Catálogo de las pulgas (Insecta: Siphonaptera) en el Museo de Zoología, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. 1. Colección Alfredo Barrera.
Serie de Catálogos del Museo de Zoología “Alfonso L. Herrera”, UNAM, (1988),
[Barnes et al., 1977]
A.M. Barnes, V.J. Tipton, J.A. Wildie.
The subfamily Anomiopsyllinae (Hystrichopsyllidae: Siphonaptera). I. A revision of the genus Anomiopsyllus Baker.
Great Basin Naturalist, 37 (1977), pp. 138-206
[Barrera, 1953]
A. Barrera.
Sinopsis de los sifonápteros de la Cuenca de México (Ins., Siph.).
Anales de la Escuela Nacional de Ciencias Biológicas, 7 (1953), pp. 155-245
[Barrera, 1968]
A. Barrera.
Distribución cliserial de los Siphonaptera del Volcán Popocatépetl, su interpretación biogeográfica.
Anales del Instituto de Biología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (Serie Zoología), 39 (1968), pp. 35-100
[Begon et al., 1988]
M. Begon, J.L. Harper, C.R. Townsend.
Ecología, individuos, poblaciones y comunidades.
Omega, (1988),
[Best and Ceballos, 1995]
T.L. Best, G. Ceballos.
Spermophilus perotensis.
Mammalian Species, 507 (1995), pp. 1-3
[Brooks et al., 2004a]
T.M. Brooks, G.A.B. da Fonseca, A.S.L. Rodrigues.
Protected areas and species.
Conservation Biology, 18 (2004), pp. 616-618
[Brooks et al., 2004b]
T.M. Brooks, G.A.B. da Fonseca, A.S.L. Rodrigues.
Species, data, and conservation planning.
Conservation Biology, 18 (2004), pp. 1682-1688
[Bush et al., 1997]
A.O. Bush, K.D. Lafferty, J.M. Lotz, A.W. Shostak.
Parasitology meets ecology on its own terms: Margolist et al. revisited.
Journal of Parasitology, 83 (1997), pp. 575-583
[Christe et al., 2006]
P. Christe, J. Michaux, S. Morand.
Biological conservation and parasitism.
Micromammals and macroparasites: from evolutionary ecology to management, pp. 593-613
[Eads, 1950]
R.B. Eads.
The fleas of Texas.
Texas State Health Department, (1950),
[Eads and Menzies, 1949]
R.B. Eads, G.C. Menzies.
A preliminary list of the Siphonaptera of Texas.
Texas Journal of Science, 1 (1949), pp. 33-39
[Falcón-Ordaz et al., 2012]
J. Falcón-Ordaz, R. Acosta, J.A. Fernández, G. Lira-Guerrero.
Helmintos y sifonápteros parásitos de cinco especies de roedores en localidades de la Cuenca Oriental, en el centro de México.
Acta Zoológica Mexicana (nuevaserie), 28 (2012), pp. 287-304
[Fernández, 2012]
J.A. Fernández.
Phylogenetics and biogeography of the microendemic rodent Xerospermophilus perotensis (Perote ground squirrel) in the Oriental Basin of Mexico.
Journal of Mammalogy, 93 (2012), pp. 1431-1439
[Fernández and Acosta, 2005]
J.A. Fernández, R. Acosta.
First records of fleas (Insecta: Siphonaptera) from the Nelson's kangaroo rat Dipodomys nelsoni (Rodentia: Heteromyidae) in Durango, Mexico.
Journal of New York Entomological Society, 113 (2005), pp. 230-233
[Fernández et al., 2010]
J.A. Fernández, F. García-Campusano, M.S. Hafner.
Peromyscus difficilis.
Mammalian Species, 42 (2010), pp. 220-229
[Ferrier et al., 2004]
S. Ferrier, G.V.N. Powell, K.S. Richardson, G. Manion, J.M. Overton, T.F. Allnutt, et al.
Mapping more of terrestrial biodiversity for global conservation assessment.
Bioscience, 54 (2004), pp. 1101-1109
[Genoways, 1973]
G.G. Genoways.
Systematics and evolutionary relationships of spiny pocket mice, genus Liomys.
Special Publications Museum Texas Tech University, 5 (1973), pp. 1-368
[González-Ruíz and Álvarez-Castañeda, 2005]
N. González-Ruíz, S.T. Álvarez-Castañeda.
Peromyscus bullatus.
Mammalian Species, 770 (2005), pp. 1-3
[González-Ruíz et al., 2006]
N. González-Ruíz, J. Ramírez-Pulido, H.H. Genoways.
Geographic distribution, taxonomy, and conservation status of Nelson's woodrat (Neotoma nelsoni) in Mexico.
The Southwestern Naturalist, 51 (2006), pp. 112-116
[Gutiérrez-Velázquez et al., 2006]
A.L. Gutiérrez-Velázquez, R. Acosta, L. Ortiz.
Distribución del orden Siphonaptera.
Componentes bióticos principales de la entomofauna mexicana, pp. 591-628
[Hafner et al., 2005]
M.S. Hafner, J.E. Light, D.J. Hafner, S.V. Brant, T.A. Spradling, J.W. Demastes.
Cryptic species in the Mexican pocket gopher Cratogeomys merriami.
Journal of Mammalogy, 86 (2005), pp. 1095-1108
[Hafner and Riddle, 2005]
D.J. Hafner, B.R. Riddle.
Mammalian phylogeography and evolutionary history of Northern Mexico's deserts.
Biodiversity, ecosystems, and conservation in Northern Mexico, pp. 225-245
[Hall, 1981]
E.R. Hall.
The mammals of North America.
John Wiley & Sons, (1981),
[Hall and Dalquest, 1963]
E.R. Hall, W.W. Dalquest.
The mammals of Veracruz.
University of Kansas, Publications Museum of Natural History, 14 (1963), pp. 165-362
[Hastriter, 2004]
W.M. Hastriter.
Revision of the flea genus Jellisonia Traub, 1944 (Siphonaptera: Ceratophylllidae).
Annals of Carnegie Museum, 73 (2004), pp. 213-238
[Holland, 1965]
G.P. Holland.
New species and subspecies of Anomiopsyllus Baker from Mexico (Siphonaptera: Hystrichopsyllidae).
The Canadian Entomologist, 97 (1965), pp. 1051-1058
[Hopkins and Rothschild, 1956]
G.H.E. Hopkins, M. Rothschild.
An illustrated catalogue of the Rothschild collection of fleas (Siphonaptera) in the British Museum of Natural History. II. Coptopsyllidae, Vermipsyllidae, Stephanocircidae, Ischnopsyllidae, Hypsophthalmidae and Xiphiopsyllidae [Macropsyllidae].
British Museum of Natural History, (1956),
[Hopkins and Rothschild, 1962]
G.H.E. Hopkins, M. Rothschild.
An illustrated catalogue of the Rothschild collection of fleas (Siphonaptera) in the British Museum of Natural History. III. Hystrichopsyllidae (Acedestiinae, Anomiopsyllinae, Hystrichopsyllinae, Neopsyllinae, Rhadinopsyllinae and Stenoponiinae).
British Museum of Natural History, (1962),
[Hopkins and Rothschild, 1966]
G.H.E. Hopkins, M. Rothschild.
An illustrated catalogue of the Rothschild Collection of fleas (Siphonaptera) in the British Museum of Natural History. IV. Hystrichopsyllidae.
British Museum of Natural History, (1966),
[Jones and Genoways, 1975]
J.K. Jones, H.H. Genoways.
Dipodomys phillipsii.
Mammalian Species, 51 (1975), pp. 1-3
[Kelt et al., 2010]
D.A. Kelt, M.S. Hafner, The American Society of Mammalogists’ Ad Hoc Committee for guidelines on handling rodents in the field.
Updated guidelines for protection of mammalogists and wildlife researchers from hantavirus pulmonary syndrome (HPS).
Journal of Mammalogy, 91 (2010), pp. 1524-1527
[Krasnov and Matthee, 2010]
B.R. Krasnov, S. Matthee.
Spatial variation in gender-baised parasitism: host-related, parasite-related and enviroment-related effects.
Parasitology, 137 (2010), pp. 1526-1537
[Krasnov et al., 1997]
B.R. Krasnov, G.I. Shenbrot, S.G. Medvedev, V.S. Vatschenok, I.S. Khokhlova.
Host–habitat relations as an important determinant of spatial distribution of flea assemblages (Siphonaptera) on rodents in the Negev Desert.
Parasitology, 114 (1997), pp. 159-173
[Lareschi et al., 2004]
M. Lareschi, R. Ojeda, P.M. Linardi.
Flea parasites of small mammals in the Monte Desert biome in Argentina with new host and locality records.
Acta Parasitologica, 49 (2004), pp. 63-66
[Linardi and Guimarães, 2000]
M.P. Linardi, L.R. Guimarães.
Sifonápteros do Brasil.
Museu de Zoologia, (2000),
[Marshall, 1981]
A. Marshall.
The ecology of ectoparasitic insects.
Academic Press, (1981),
[McAllister and Wilson, 1992]
C.T. McAllister, N. Wilson.
Two additions to the flea (Siphonaptera: Hystrichopsyllidae, Leptopsyllidae) fauna of Texas.
Texas Journal of Science, 442 (1992), pp. 245-247
[Morand and Poulin, 1998]
S. Morand, R. Poulin.
Density, body mass and parasite species richness of terrestrial mammals.
Evolutionary Ecology, 12 (1998), pp. 717-727
[Petersen, 1978]
M.K. Petersen.
Rodent ecology and natural history observations on the mammals of Atotonilco de Campa, Durango, Mexico.
Carter Press, (1978),
[Ponce and Llorente, 1996]
H.E. Ponce, J.E. Llorente.
Siphonaptera.
Biodiversidad, taxonomía y biogeografía de artrópodos de México: hacia una síntesis de su conocimiento, pp. 553-565
[Rothschild, 1975]
M. Rothschild.
Recent advances in our knowledge of the order Siphonaptera.
Annual Review of Entomology, 20 (1975), pp. 241-259
[Salceda-Sánchez and Hastriter, 2006]
B. Salceda-Sánchez, M.W. Hastriter.
A list of the fleas (Siphonaptera) of Mexico with new host and distribution records.
Zootaxa, 1296 (2006), pp. 2-43
[Semarnat, 2010]
Semarnat (Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales). (2010). Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010, Protección ambiental-Especies nativas de México de flora y fauna silvestres-Categorías de riesgo y especificaciones para su inclusión, exclusión o cambio-Lista de especies en riesgo. Diario Oficial de la Federación 6 de Septiembre de 2010. Retrieved from http://dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5173091&fecha=30/12/2010
[Shreve, 1942]
F. Shreve.
The desert vegetation of North America.
Botanical Review, 8 (1942), pp. 195-246
[Sikes et al., 2011]
R.S. Sikes, W.L. Gannon, the Animal Care and Use Committee of the American Society of Mammalogists.
Guidelines of the American Society of Mammalogists for the use of wild mammals in research.
Journal of Mammalogy, 92 (2011), pp. 235-253
[Smit, 1957]
F.G.A.M. Smit.
Royal Entomological Society of London, (1957),
[Spencer and Cameron, 1982]
S.R. Spencer, G.N. Cameron.
Reithrodontomys fulvescens.
Mammalian Species, 174 (1982), pp. 1-7
[Stark, 1958]
H.E. Stark.
The Siphonaptera of Utah.
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, (1958),
[Streubel, 1975]
D.P. Streubel.
Behavioral features of sympatry of Spermophilus spilosoma and Spermophilus tridecemlineatus and some aspects of the life history of S. spilosoma.
University of Northern Colorado, (1975),
[Sumrell, 1949]
F. Sumrell.
A life history study of the ground squirrel Citellus spilosoma major (Merriam).
University of New Mexico, (1949),
[Tipton and Méndez, 1968]
V.H. Tipton, E. Méndez.
New species of fleas (Siphonaptera) from Cerro Potosí, México, with notes on ecology and host–parasite relationships.
Pacific Insects, 10 (1968), pp. 177-214
[Traub, 1950]
R. Traub.
Siphonaptera of Central America and Mexico. A morphological study of the aedeagus with descriptions of new genera and species.
Fieldiana Zoology, 1 (1950), pp. 1-127
[Traub, 1985]
R. Traub.
Coevolution of fleas and mammals.
Coevolution of parasitic arthropods and mammals, pp. 295-437
[Traub and Hoff, 1951]
R. Traub, C. Hoff.
Records and descriptions of fleas from New Mexico.
American Museum Novitates, 1530 (1951), pp. 1-23
[Traub et al., 1983]
R. Traub, M. Rothschild, J. Haddow.
The Ceratophyllidae.
Robert Trauband Miriam Rothschild Publ. (British Museum), (1983),
[Valdéz and Ceballos, 1997]
M. Valdéz, G. Ceballos.
Conservation of endemic mammals of Mexico: the Perote ground squirrel (Spermophilus perotensis).
Journal of Mammalogy, 78 (1997), pp. 74-82
[Vargas et al., 2009]
M. Vargas, T.M. Pérez, O.J. Polaco.
The genus Geomylichus Fain (Acari: Listrophoridae) from Mexico, with descriptions of four new species.
International Journal of Acarology, 25 (2009), pp. 3-12
[Whitaker and Morales-Malacara, 2005]
J.O. Whitaker, J.E. Morales-Malacara.
Ectoparasites and other associates (ectodytes) of mammals of Mexico.
Contribuciones mastozoológicas en homenaje a Bernardo Villa, pp. 535-666
[Whitaker et al., 1993]
J.O. Whitaker, J.W. Wren, R.E. Lewis.
Parasites.
Biology of the Heteromyidae, pp. 386-478
[Wilson, 1992]
E.O. Wilson.
The diversity of life.
Belknap Press, WW Norton, (1992),

Peer Review under the responsibility of Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

Copyright © 2015. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Instituto de Biología
Opciones de artículo
Herramientas
es en pt
Política de cookies Cookies policy Política de cookies
Utilizamos cookies propias y de terceros para mejorar nuestros servicios y mostrarle publicidad relacionada con sus preferencias mediante el análisis de sus hábitos de navegación. Si continua navegando, consideramos que acepta su uso. Puede cambiar la configuración u obtener más información aquí. To improve our services and products, we use "cookies" (own or third parties authorized) to show advertising related to client preferences through the analyses of navigation customer behavior. Continuing navigation will be considered as acceptance of this use. You can change the settings or obtain more information by clicking here. Utilizamos cookies próprios e de terceiros para melhorar nossos serviços e mostrar publicidade relacionada às suas preferências, analisando seus hábitos de navegação. Se continuar a navegar, consideramos que aceita o seu uso. Você pode alterar a configuração ou obter mais informações aqui.