image/svg+xmlISSN Versión impresa 2218-6425ISSN Versión Electrónica 1995-1043Neotropical Helminthology, 2021, 15(2), jul-dic:139-148.ORIGINAL ARTICLE / ARTÍCULO ORIGINAL1Departamento de Parasitologia Animal, Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro-UFRRJ. Seropédica, RJ- Brasil*Corresponding author: raquel83vet@gmail.comRaquel de Oliveira Simões: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5130-3341 Valéria da Silva Carneiro: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4682-9431José Luis Luque: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3515-11271*1 1Raquel de Oliveira Simões; Valéria da Silva Carneiro& José Luis LuqueABSTRACTKeywords:birds – Cestoda – Nematoda –parasite ecology – prevalence – parasite richness The domestic chicken, Gallus gallus domesticus Linnaeus, 1758, is an important component of the agribusiness segment, and Brazil is one of the world's largest broiler producers and exporters. The present study aimed to characterize the composition and structure of the helminth community of backyard chickens, G. g. domesticus,in Seropédica, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Fifty-five adult chickens were studied. The overall helminth species richness was 12. The nematodes Capillaria sp. and Heterakis gallinarum (Schrank, 1788),recovered from small intestine and cecum, respectively, presented the highest prevalence and mean abundance. In addition, these species presented the highest values of frequency of dominance. The helminth species Amoebotaenia cuneata (von Linstow, 1872) – Raillietina tetragona(Molin, 1958); andDavainea proglottina(Davaine, 1860) – A. cuneata;and H. gallinarum – Capillaria sp. showed significant positive correlation between their abundance and prevalence. Gongylonema ingluvicola Ransom, 1904 andH. gallinarum showed significant correlation between host sex and helminth abundance, while there was no correlation between host sex and helminth prevalence. The knowledge of helminth community structure in free-range chickens is important to adopt better measures for control and prevention of helminth infections.Neotropical Helminthology139doi:10.24039/rnh20211521196HELMINTH COMMUNITY OF BACKYARD CHICKENS (GALLUS GALLUS DOMESTICUS LINNAEUS, 1758)IN SEROPÉDICA, RIO DE JANEIRO, BRAZILCOMUNIDADE DE HELMINTOS DE FRANGOS DE QUINTAL (GALLUS GALLUS DOMESTICUSLINNAEUS, 1758)EM SEROPÉDICA, RIO DE JANEIRO, BRASILCOMUNIDAD DE HELMINTOS DE POLLOS CASEROS (GALLUS GALLUS DOMESTICUSLINNAEUS, 1758) EN SEROPÉDICA, RIO DE JANEIRO, BRASILDDD
image/svg+xml140RESUMOPalavras-chaves:aves – Cestoda – Nematoda – ecologia parasitária – prevalência – riqueza parasitariaAs galinhas domésticas Gallus gallusdomesticusLinnaeus, 1758, são um importante componente do segmento do agronegócio, e o Brasil é um dos maiores produtores e exportadores de frangos de corte. O presente estudo teve como objetivo caracterizar a estrutura da comunidade componente de helmintos de galinhas de fundo de quintal, G. g. domesticus, em Seropédica, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. Foram estudados 55 frangos adultos. A riqueza total de helmintos foi de 12 espécies. Os nematoides Capillariasp. e Heterakis gallinarum(Schrank, 1788),encontrados no intestino delgado e ceco, respectivamente, foram as espécies mais prevalentes e com maior abundância média e foram consideradas espécies centrais. Além disso, essas espécies apresentaram alta frequência de dominância e dominância relativa média. Os pares de espécies de helmintos Amoebotaenia cuneata(von Linstow, 1872) - Raillietina tetragona (Molin, 1958); Davainea proglottina(Davaine, 1860) - A. cuneatae H. gallinarum- Capillariasp. mostraram correlação positiva significativa entre abundância média e prevalência parasitária. Gongylonema ingluvicolaRansom, 1904andH. gallinarum mostraram correlação significativa entre sexo do hospedeiro e abundância de helminto, enquanto que não houve correlação no sexo do hospedeiro e a prevalência destes. O conhecimento da estrutura da comunidade de helmintos em frangos criados no quintal é importante para a adoção de medidas de controle e prevenção de helmintos.Neotropical Helminthology, 2021, 15(2), jul-dicSimões et al.RESUMENPalabras clave:aves – Cestoda – Nematoda – ecología parasitaria – prevalência – riqueza parasitariaLas gallinas domésticas, Gallus gallus domesticusLinnaeus, 1758,son un componente importante del segmento de la agroindustria y Brasil es uno de los mayores productores y exportadores de pollos. El presente estudio tuvo como objetivo caracterizar la estructura comunitaria de helmintos de pollos criados en corrales, G. g. domesticus, en Seropédica, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. Se estudiaron 55 aves adultas. La riqueza total de helmintos fue de 12 especies. Capillariasp. y Heterakis gallinarum(Schrank, 1788),que se encontraron en el intestino delgado y ciego intestinal, respectivamente, fueron las especies más prevalentes con mayor abundancia promedio y fueron consideradas especies centrales. Además, estas especies mostraron los valores mayores de frecuencia de dominancia y de dominancia relativa media. Los pares de especies de helmintos, Amoebotaenia cuneata (von Linstow, 1872)- Raillietina tetragona (Molin, 1958); Davainea proglottina (Davaine, 1860)- A. cuneatay H. gallinarum - Capillariasp. mostraron una correlación positiva significativa entre la abundancia media y la prevalencia de parásitos. Gongylonema ingluvicolaRansom, 1904 y H. gallinarummostraron una correlación significativa entre el sexo del huésped y la abundancia de helmintos, mientras que no hubo correlación entre el sexo del huésped y la prevalencia de helmintos. El conocimiento de la estructura de la comunidad de helmintos en los pollos criados en corrales es importante para la adopción de medidas de prevención y control de helmintos.The domestic chicken, Gallus gallus domesticus Linnaeus, 1758, is an important component of the agribusiness segment, and Brazil is one of the world's largest broiler producers and exporters INTRODUCTION(ABPA, 2020). There is high demand for chicken meat and eggs due to high nutritional value and affordable price (Geraldo et al., 2020). In the past decade, the market of organic, healthy, and sustainable products and contingent of consumers concerned about animal welfare have both increased (Miao et al., 2005; Alsaffar, 2016).
image/svg+xmlChickens under free-range production typically show signs of calmness and comfort (Bogdanov, 1997). However, chickens reared freely are more exposed to helminths than those kept in confinement (Cardozo & Yamamura, 2004; Lozano et al., 2019), since they have direct contact with soil, and free access to different areas and food items (Gomes et al., 2009). A high burden of gastrointestinal helminths can decrease productivity by increasing mortality, causing economic losses to breeders (Ruff, 1999).In Brazil, many studies have reported the occurrence of helminths in G. g. domesticus in different regions and breeding systems (Grisi & Cravalho, 1974; Quadros et al., 2015; Silva et al., 2016; Silva et al., 2018; Brandão-Simões et al., 2020). However, little is known about the helminth community structure of G. g. domesticus in this condition (Silva et al., 2016, 2018). Studies of parasites through an ecological approach, to detect possible patterns in the organization and composition of parasite populations, can be relevant to understand the distribution of the pathogen species in different breeding systems. Moreover, it can assist helminthic control strategies and contribute to develop biosafety programs. Here, we characterize the composition and structure of the helminth component community of backyard chickensin Seropédica, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.Host and parasitological proceduresFifty-five sexually mature G. g. domesticus were purchased dead during 1999-2000. The study was carried out in Seropédica (22° 44′ 29″S, 43° 42′ 19″W), state of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The chickens were subjected to procedures in accordance with standard international parasitological guidelines (Yazwinski et al., 2003). The gastrointestinal tract, eyeball, trachea, lungs, kidneys, and bursa of Fabricius were examined. The helminths were washed in saline solution (0.85% NaCl) and fixed in AFA (2% acetic acid, 3% formaldehyde and 95% ethanol). For microscopic studies, nematodes were cleared in lactophenol and cestodes were stained with chlorhydric carmine. The helminth parasites were identified according to Yamaguti (1961), Khalil et al. (1994), Vicente et al.(1995) and Shmidt (1986), along with specific papers.Data analysisTo analyze the helminth community structure, we considered prevalence, mean intensity and mean abundance of each species using the procedures described by Bush et al. (1997). Statistical analyses were performed only for the parasite species with prevalence higher than 10%. The frequency of dominance and the Berger-Parker index of each parasite species were calculated according to Rohde et al.(1995) and Magurran (2004).Species richness, helminth richness at the infracommunity level and Brillouin's diversity index (log10) were calculated. The parasite infracommunity species were classified as: a) central species (present in more than one-third of the hosts); b) secondary species (present in one- to two-thirds of the hosts); and c) satellite species (present in less than a third of the hosts) (Bush & Holmes, 1986).Mann-Whitney Utest values and chi-square analysis were used for comparison of parasite abundance and prevalence, respectively, and between host sex (Zar, 1999). These analyses were performed following the recommendations of Wilkinson (1990) using the SYSTAT™ statistical software.The possible relationships between prevalence and abundance between pairs of concurrent species were determined using the chi-square test and Spearman rank correlation coefficient, respectively (Ludwig & Reynolds, 1988). Statistical significance was considered at P< 0.05. All ecological terminology was used according to Bush et al.(1997).Ethic aspectsAll national and institutional guidelines for use of animals were followed. All chickens were purchased died.141MATERIALES AND METHODSHelminth community of backyard chickensNeotropical Helminthology, 2021, 15(2), jul-dic
image/svg+xml142The overall helminth richness was 12 species. The helminth richness at the infracommunity level ranged of 1 to 10, with a mean of 5.2 ± 2.2. Fifty-three hosts (96%) presented two or more helminth species.A total of 10,708 specimens were collected, with mean abundance of 194.7 ± 283.9. Nematodes were the most abundant, with 7 species representing 60.7% of all parasite specimens collected. All chickens examined were parasitized by at least one species of nematode and 85.7% (47) were parasitized by cestodes. Trematodes were not found. The nematode Capillaria Zeder, 1800 was not identified to the species level as cestode Raillietina Fuhrmann, 1920 due to the low quality of the morphological characteristics, such as scolex and mature proglottids, of the specimens collected. RESULTSThe nematodes Capillaria sp. and Heterakis gallinarum (Schrank, 1788), recovered from the small intestine and cecum, respectively, presented the highest values of prevalence and mean abundance and were considered central species (Table 1). In addition, these species presented the highest values of frequency of dominance and Berger-Parker index (Table 2); while the cestode Raillietina sp. presented the highest value of mean intensity and was considered a secondary species along with the cestode Amoebotaenia cuneata(von Linstow, 1872) and the nematodes Gongylonema ingluvicolaRansom, 1904and Oxyspirura mansoni. (Cobbold, 1879) (Table 2). Secondary species were found in the small intestine, crop and eye. Tetrameres confusa Travassos, 1917showed the lowest values of prevalence, mean intensity and abundance(Table 1). The Brillouin index for helminth infracommunities had mean value of 0.43 ± 0.19 and maximum diversity of 0.78.Simões et al.Table 1.Prevalence (P), mean intensity (MI), and mean abundance (MA) followed by standard error, community status (CS) and site of infection (SI) of helminth parasites of Gallus gallus. domesticus from Seropédica, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.Helminth speciesP (%)MIMACS*SICESTODAAmoebotaenia cuneata41.845.4+99.919.0+67.6SSmall IntestineDavainea proglottina30.937.2+53.011.5+33.7SaSmall IntestineRaillietina tetragona32.316.5+29.25.4+18.2SaSmall IntestineRaillietina echinobothrida27.317.5+22.44.8+13.9SaSmall IntestineRaillietina sp.43.681.9+253.335.7+170.3SSmallIntestineNEMATODAAscaridia galli21.837.6+65.78.2+33.6SaSmall IntestineCapillaria sp.90.946.0+83.741.8+80.9CSmallIntestineCheilospirura hamulosa25.48.9+13.22.2+7.6SaVentricleGongylonema ingluvicola49.17.0+8.23.4+6.7SCropHeterakis gallinarum72.763.1+122.845.9+108.1CCecumOxyspirura mansoni56.427.7+36.215.6+30.4SEyeTetrameres confusa23.64.1+4.41.0+2.7SaProventriculum* Central species (C). Secondary species (S) and Satellite species (Sa).Neotropical Helminthology, 2021, 15(2), jul-dic
image/svg+xml143Table 2.Frequency of dominance and Berger Parker Index values (BPI) of the helminth species from Gallus gallus domesticusin the municipality of Seropédica. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.Helminth speciesFrequency of dominanceBPICESTODAAmoebotaenia cuneata50.08+0.16Davainea proglottina20.05+0.12Raillietina tetragona20.04+0.10Raillietina echinobothrida30.04+0.14Raillietina sp.70.12+0.24NEMATODAAscaridia galli10.02+0.09Capillaria sp.130.25+0.22Cheilospirura hamulosa00.01+0.03Gongylonema ingluvicola00.03+0.06Heterakis gallinarum150.23+0.24Oxyspirura mansoni70.12+0.21Tetrameres confusa00.01+0.032Table 3.Mann-Whitney Utest values (Z, value of the normal U test approximation) and Chi square () to evaluate the relationship between the sex of Gallus domesticusand the abundance and prevalence of the components of its parasitic community (P= level of significance).Helminth speciesZPc2PCESTODAAmoebotaenia cuneata-0.180.860.150.70Davainea proglottina-0.720.470.020.89Raillietina tetragona-0.370.710.020.89Raillietina echinobothrida-1.530.130.230.63Raillietina sp.-0.470.640.090.76NEMATODAAscaridia galli-0.260.790.220.64Capillaria sp.-1.850.060.010.94Cheilospirura hamulosa-0.710.480.060.81Gongylonema ingluvicola-2.11*0.040.960.33Heterakis gallinarum-2.01*0.040.020.89Oxyspirura mansoni-1.410.160.090.76Tetrameres confusa-0.850.400.120.73*Significant ValueHelminth community of backyard chickensNeotropical Helminthology, 2021, 15(2), jul-dic
image/svg+xml144Gongylonema ingluvicula andH. gallinarum showed significant correlation between host sex and helminth abundance, while there was no correlation between host sex and helminths prevalence (Table 3).The following pairs of concurrent helminths showed significant positive correlation between their abundance and prevalence, respectively: Amoebotaenia cuneata – Raillietina tetragona 2(Molin, 1858)(rs = 0.37; P = 0.006/= 8.59; P= 0.004), Davainea proglottina (Davaine, 1860)A. 2cuneata (rs = 0.46; P < 0.001/= 3.53; P= 0.049); and H. gallinarum – Capillaria sp. (r = 0.39; P = s20.003/= 5.6; P= 0.024). The pair R. tetragona Ascaridia galli showed significant correlation only 2between abundance (r = 0.37; P = 0.005/= 2.22; sP= 0.136).Several studies of the characteristics of the helminth communities of G. g. domesticushave been performed worldwide (Schou et al., 2007; Idika et al., 2016; Slimane, 2016; Berhe et al., 2019; Sarba et al., 2019, among others). In Brazil, most studies have focused only on the description of the helminth fauna (Costa & Freitas, 1959; Grisi & Carvalho, 1974; Gomes et al., 2009; Siqueira & Marques, 2016). More recently, knowledge about the helminth community structure of chickens raised in different production systems has increased, mainly in the state of São Paulo (Silva et al., 2016; 2018). In contrast, there are few reports of the helminth community structure of G. g. domesticusin the state of Rio de Janeiro (Grisi & Carvalho, 1974; Gomes et al., 2009). The composition and structure of the helminth community of a specific host population correspond to a pool of available parasite species in a specific locality. Moreover, the structure and composition of a helminth community can vary due to biotic and abiotic factors, such as environmental changes, parasite control, host behavior and age, among others (Poulin, 2007; Santoro et al., 2012; Simões et al., 2016; Cardoso et al., 2019). Grisi & Cravalho (1974) reported 13 species of helminths in G. g. domesticusin Seropédica, DISCUSSIONsimilar to the present study, in which we found 12 species in the same locality. However, some species differed between the studies. The species Syngamus trachea(Montagu, 1811), Heterakis brevispiculum Gendre, 1911, Capillaria collaris (Linstow, 1873)andC. obsignataMadsen, 1945 were not found in our study, although we found nematodes belonging to the genus Capillaria. Unfortunately, the specific identification was not possible. Moreover, we collected two species of cestodes (Davainea proglottina andAmoebotaenia cuneata) that were not reported by Grisi & Carvalho (1974). Neither study found trematodes. In contrast, Silva et al.(2016, 2018) reported trematodes in different regions of São Paulo state. These differences have also been observed in chickens from African and Asian countries (Berhe et al., 2019; Chege et al., 2015; Junaidu et al., 2014; Schou et al., 2007). Additionally, nematodes and cestodes have been reported with more frequency than trematodes in the component helminth community in chickens by many researchers around the world (Sarba et al., 2019; Idika et al., 2016; Slimane, 2016; Hussen et al., 2012). Variation in environmental conditions can favor or disfavor the presence of intermediate hosts responsible for cestode and trematode transmission and can also influence the occurrence of these species in the helminth community of the definitive host.In the present study, all chickens were infected with the nematodes H. gallinarum and Capillaria sp., and both were the more prevalent (central species), with high frequency of dominance and mean values of Berger-Parker index in the helminth community. Similar findings were also observed by Gomes et al.(2009), Siqueira & Marques (2016) and Silvaet al.(2018) in chickens reared in extensive, semi-intensive and/or intensive systems. Parasites with a direct life cycle have a higher probability of infecting definitive hosts since there is no intermediate host. In addition, the high fertility of these female nematodes increases the likelihood of host infection due to more eggs eliminated in the environment. The chickens in the present study were raised free outdoors and allowed to find food by foraging in the surface soil layer. Thus, these factors can partly explain the high prevalence of nematodes in the helminth community.Simões et al.Neotropical Helminthology, 2021, 15(2), jul-dic
image/svg+xml145The influence of host sex on the helminth abundance has been observed in different helminth community structures (Simões et al., 2014; Wendt et al., 2018). The influence of female chickens was observed regarding two nematodes species (H.gallinarumand Capillariasp.). However, this result must be viewed with caution, since the proportion of female chickens used in the study was much greater than of males (10: 1). In addition, many studies of the helminth community of G. g. domesticus have not reported significant differences in helminth infection rate between male and female animals (Poulsen et al., 2000; Abdelqader et al., 2008; Ebrahimi et al., 2014).The positive correlation of abundance and prevalence between pairs of cestodes and nematodes may be related to the similarities of their life cycle. The cestodes R. tetragona, A. cuneata and D. proglottina need an intermediate host, such as an ant, beetle or fly; earthworm; and slug respectively (Acha & Szyfres, 2003; Taylor et al., 2017). One of the food items collected by the chicken was small animals found in the soil. Similarly, this can explain the positive correlation with nematodes, which have a direct life cycle and oral infection. Free-range chickens are exposed to more parasites than those reared in intensive systems (Ruff, 1999; Lozano et al., 2019) due to the direct contact with soil and intermediate hosts. Tapeworms are frequently encountered in the chickens in these production systems and most species cause low pathogenicity (Ruff, 1999). However, R. tetragona and D. proglottinaare morepathogenic, reducing the performance of parasitized animals (Ruff, 1999; Nnadi & George, 2010). Moreover, parasitism by Capillariaspp. can also cause production losses (Ruff, 1999). Seasonality and other collection areas should be considered in future studies to measure the heterogeneity and stability of the parasite helminth community. Knowledge of the helminth community structure in backyard chickens can be relevant to allow breeders to adopt better measures for control and prevention of helminths. Moreover, other variables like climate conditions, hygiene, age, and animal density should also be considered since they may cause influence in the parasitism. In addition, this study can also serve as a baseline for future parasitological studies on other bird species.Abdelqader, A, Gauly, M, Wollny, CBA & Abo-Shehada, MM. 2008. Prevalence and burden of gastrointestinal helminthes among local chickens, in northern Jordan.Preventive Veterinary Medicine, vol. 85, pp.17-22.ABPA. Associação Brasileira de Proteína Animal. 2020. “Relatório Anual, 2020”https://abpa-br.org/relatorios.Acha, B & Szyfres, P. 2003. Zoonoses and communicable diseases common to man and animals V. 3: Parasitoses.3. Ed. PAHO Publication centers, Washington, p. 401. Alsaffar, AA. 2016. Sustainable diets: The interaction between food industry, nutrition, health, and the environment.Food Science and Technology International, vol. 22, pp. 102-111.Brandão-Simões, M, Melo, AL & Moreira, NIB. 2020. Ocurrence of Heterakis galinarumSchrank, 1788) (Nematoda: Heterakidae) in Gallus gallus domesticusLinnaeus, 1758 in Vitória, Espirito Santo, Brazil. Neotropical Helminthology, vol. 114, pp. 199-203. Berhe, M, Mekibib, B, Bsrat, A. & Atsbaha, G. 2019. Gastrointestinal Helminth Parasites of Chicken under Different Management System in Mekelle Town, Tigray Region, Ethiopia. Journal of Veterinary Medicine, vol. 2019, pp. 1-7.Bogdanov, IA. 1997. Seasonal effects on free-range egg production. World Poultry-Misset,vol. 13, pp. 47-49.Bush, AO & Holmes, JC. 1986. Intestinal helminths of lesser scaup ducks: an interactive community. Canadian Journal of Zoology, vol. 64, pp. 142-152.Bush, AO, Laferty, K D, Lotz, JM & Shostak, AW. 1997. Parasitology meets ecology on its own terms: Margolis et al. Revisited.Journal of Parasitology, vol. 83, pp. 575-583.BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES Helminth community of backyard chickensNeotropical Helminthology, 2021, 15(2), jul-dic
image/svg+xml146Cardoso, TS, Macabu, CE, Simões, RO, Maldonado-Júnior, A, Luque, JL & Gentile, R. 2019. Helminth Community structure of two sigmodontinae rodents in Serra dos Órgãos Nacional Park, State of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.Oecologia Australis,vol. 23, pp. 301-314.Cardozo, SP & Yamamura, MH. 2004. Parasitas em produção de frangos no sistema de criação tipo colonial/caipira no Brasil.Semina: Ciências Agrárias, vol. 25, pp. 63-74.Chege, HW, Kemboi, DC, Bebora, LC, Maingi, N, Mbuthia, PG, Nyaga, PN, Njagi, LW & Githinji, J. 2015. Studies on seasonal prevalence of ecto- and endo-parasites in indigenous chicken of Mbeere Subcounty, Kenya.Livestock Research for Rural Development, vol. 27, pp. 113.Costa, HMA & Freitas, M. 1959. Novos achados helmintológicos em animais domésticos em Minas Gerais.Arquivos da Escola de Veterinária da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, vol. 12, pp. 293-297.Ebrahimi, M, Asadpour, M, Verdi, Mk & Borji, H. 2014. Prevalence and distribution of gastrointestinal helminths in free range chickens in Mashhad, northeast of Iran. Science Parasitology, vol. 15, pp.38-42.Geraldo, A, Valentim, JK, Zanella, J, Mendes, JP, Silva, AF, Garcia, RG, Eberhart, BS & Pantoja, JC. 2020. Profile of caipira broiler meat producers and consumers in the Alto San Francisco region-MG. Revista online de extensão e cultura Realização, vol. 7, pp.81-93.Gomes, FF, Machado, HHD, Lemos, LS, Almeida, LG & Daher, RF. 2009. Principais parasitos intestinais diagnosticados em galinhas domésticas criadas em regime extensivo na- municipalidade de Campos dos Goytacases, RJ. Ciência Animal Brasileira, vol. 10, pp. 818-822.Grisi, L & Carvalho, LP. 1974. Prevalência de helmintos parasitos deGalus galus domesticusL., no estado do Rio de Janeiro. Revista Brasileira de Biologia, vol.34, pp. 115-118. Hussen, H, Chaka, H, Deneke, Y & Bitew, M. 2012. Gastrointestinal helminths are highly prevalent in scavenging chickens of selected districts of Eastern Shewa zone.,The Ethiopian Journal of Biological Sciences, vol. 12, pp. 284-289. Idika, IK, Obi, C, Ezeh, IO, Iheagwam, CN, Njoku, IN & Nwosu, CO. 2016. Gastrointestinal helminth parasites of local chickens from selected communities in Nsukka region of southeastern Nigeria.Journal of Parasitic Diseases, vol. 40, pp. 1376–1380.Junaidu, HI, Luka, S A & Mijinyawa, A. 2014. Prevalence of gastrointestinal helminth parasites of the domestic fowl (Gallus gallus domesticus) slaughtered in Giwa market, Giwa local government, area, Kaduna state, Nigeria.Journal of Natural Sciences Research, vol. 4, pp. 120–125.Khalil, LF, Jones, A. & Bray, RA. 1994. Keys to the cestode parasites of vertebrates. CABI Publishing and the Natural History Museum.Lozano, J, Anaya, A, Salinero, AP, Lux Hoppe, EG, Gomes, L, Paz-Silva, A, Rebelo, MT & Madeira de Carvalho, E. 2019. Gastrointestinal Parasites of Free-Range Chickens – A Worldwide Issue.Bulletin UASVM Veterinary Medicine, vol. 76, pp. 110-117.Ludwig, JA & Reynolds, JF. 1988. Statistical Ecology: a primer on methods and computing. Wiley-Interscience Publications.Magurran, AE. 2004. Measuring Biological Diversity. Blackwell Publishing.Miao, Z H, Glatz, PC & Ru, YJ. 2005. Free-range Poultry Production - A Review. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, vol. 18, pp. 130-132. Nnadi, PA & George, SO. 2010. A cross-sectional survey on parasites of chickens in selected villages in the subhumid zones of South-eastern Nigeria.Journal of Parasitology Research, vol. 2010, pp. 1-6.Poulin, R. 2007. Evolutionary ecology of parasites from individuals to communities.Princeton University Press.Poulsen J, Permin, A, Hindsbo, O, Yelifari, L, Nansen, P & Bloch P. 2000. Prevalence and distribution of gastro-intestinal helminths and haemoparasites in young scavenging chickens in upper eastern region of Ghana, West Africa.Preventive Veterinary Medicine, vol.45, pp.237-245.Quadros, RM, Wiggers, SB, Paes, MPV & Simões et al.Neotropical Helminthology, 2021, 15(2), jul-dic
image/svg+xml147Marques, SMT. 2015.Prevalência de endo e ectoparasitos de galinhas caipiras em pequenas propriedades da região serrana de Santa Catarina.Publicações em Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia, vol. 9, pp. 1-5.Rohde, K, Hayward, C & Heap, M. 1995. Aspects of the ecology of metazoan ectoparasites of marine fishes. International Journal of Parasitology, vol. 25, pp. 945-970.Ruff, MD.1999. Important parasites in poultry production systems. Veterinary Parasitology, vol. 84, pp.337–347.Santoro, M, Mattiucci, S, Nascetti, G, Kinsella, JM, Prisco, F, Troisi, S, D'Alessio, N, Veneziano, V & Aznar, FJ. 2012. Helminth Communities of Owls (Strigiformes) Indicate Strong Biological and Ecological Differences from Birds of Prey (Accipitriformes and Falconiformes) in Southern Italy. PLoS ONE, vol. 7, e53375.Sarba, EJ, Bayu, MD, Gebremedhin, EZ, Motuma, K, Leta, S, Abdisa, K, Kebebew, G & Borena, BM. 2019.Gastrointestinal helminths of backyard chickens in selected areas of West Shoa Zone Central, Ethiopia.Veterinary Parasitology: Regional Studies and Reports, vol. 15, pp. 100265.Schou, TW, Permin, A, Juul-Madsen, HR, Sørensen, P, Labouriau, R, Nguyên, TL, Fink, M & Pham SL. 2007. Gastrointestinal helminths in indigenous and exotic chickens in Vietnam: association of the intensity of infection with the Major Histocompatibility Complex. Parasitology, vol. 134, pp. 561–573.Silva, GS, Romera, DM, Fonseca, LEC & Meireles, MV. 2016. Helminthic parasites of chickens (Gallus domesticus) in different regions of São Paulo State, Brazil... Helminthic parasites of chickens (Gallus domesticus) in different regions of São Paulo State, Brazil.Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science, vol. 18, pp. 163-168.Silva, GS, Romera, DM, Conhalato, GS, Soares, VE & Meireles, MV. 2018. Helminth infections in chickens (Gallus domesticus) raised in different production systems in Brazil.Veterinary Parasitology: Regional Studies and Reports, vol.12, pp. 55-60.Simões, RO, Luque, JL, Gentile, R, Rosa, MCS, Costa-Neto, S & Maldonado, A. 2016. Biotic and abiotic effects on the intestinal helminth community of the brown rat Rattus norvegicusfrom Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.Journal of Helminthology, vol. 90, pp. 21–27.Simões, RO, Maldonado JR., A., Olifers, N, Garcia, JS, Bertolino, AVFA & Luque, JL. 2014.A longitudinal study of Angiostrongylus cantonensisin an urban population of Rattus norvegicusin Brazil: the influences of seasonality and host features on the pattern of infection.Parasites & Vectors, vol.7, pp.1-8.Siqueira, GB & Marques, SMT. 2016. Parasitos intestinais em galinhas caipiras da região metropolitana de Porto Alegre, RS.Publicações em Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia, vol. 10, pp. 690-695.Schmidt, GD. 1986. Handbook of Tapeworm Identification. CRC. Press. Inc., Boca Raton. Slimane, BB. 2016. Prevalence of the gastro-intestinal parasites of domestic chicken Gallus domesticusLinnaeus, 1758 in Tunisia according to the agro-ecological zones.Journalof ParasiticDiseases, vol. 40, pp. 774–778. Taylor, MA, Coop, RL & Wall, RL. 2017. Parasitologia Veterinária.4ª ed Guanabara Koogan. Vicente, JJ, Rodrigues, HO, Gomes, DC & Ponto, RM. 1995. Nematóides do Brasil. Parte IV: Nematóides de aves. Revista Brasileira de Zoologia, vol. 12, pp.1-273.Wendt, EW, Monteiro, CM & Amato, SB. 2018. Helminth fauna of Megaleporinus obtusidens(Characiformes: Anostomidae) from Lake Guaíba: analysis of the parasite community.Parasitology Research, vol. 117, pp.445-2456.Wilkinson, L. 1990. SYSTAT: The system for statistics.Systat Inc, Illinois, p. 822.Yamaguti, F. 1961. Sistema Helminthum. Vol II. The nematodes of vertebrates. Interscience Publisher, New York, p. 1261.Yazwinski, TA, Chapman HD, Davis, RB, Letonja, T, Pote, L, Maes, L, Vercruysse, J & Jacobs, DE. 2003. World Association for the Advancement of Veterinary Parasitology (WAAVP) guidelines for evaluating the effectiveness of anthelmintics in chickens and turkeys.Veterinary Parasitology, Helminth community of backyard chickensNeotropical Helminthology, 2021, 15(2), jul-dic
image/svg+xml148vol.116, pp.159-173.Zar, JH. 1999. Bioestatistical Analysis.Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River.Simões et al.Received June 4, 2021.Accepted July 8, 2021.Neotropical Helminthology, 2021, 15(2), jul-dic