Open Access

Research Article

Introduction Top

Emerging infectious diseases (EIDs) affecting wildlife appear to be increasing in number and have led to localized decreases in population sizes and species extinctions [1]–[4]. Wildlife diseases are especially relevant today due to the potential of zoonotics such as West Nile Virus, HIV, and H5N1 avian influenza [5]–[7]. EIDs are facilitated by the movement of vectors and pathogens due to environmental alterations caused by climate change and human impacts (e.g. deforestation or the introduction of invasive species) [8]. Diseases are also pertinent to conservation biology because endangered or threatened species may be pushed to extinction due to direct mortality or indirectly by a reduced reproductive success [9], [10].

The Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis) is threatened not only by habitat loss, but also an invasive owl species. All three subspecies of the Spotted Owl (Northern, S. o. caurina; California, S. o. occidentalis; and Mexican, S. o. lucida) have been the focus of intense conservation efforts. This study focuses on the Northern and California Spotted Owls since they are the two subspecies currently most impacted by the Barred Owl (Strix varia) range expansion [11]–[15].

Over the past fifty years, Barred Owls have expanded their historic range in the eastern United States by crossing through the southwestern region of Canada and moving down the Pacific Coast of Canada and the U.S. [11]. Barred Owls began their range expansion in British Columbia in 1943, and by 2007, were a prime reason for near extirpation of Spotted Owls in the province [16], [17]. In the United States, Barred Owls were first recorded in Washington in 1965, in Oregon in 1974 [18], and in California in 1981 [16]. Presently, they continue to move south, increasing in population size throughout the Spotted Owl range [11], [19]. Barred Owls pose a threat to Spotted Owls because they are more aggressive than Spotted Owls and compete for food and nesting resources [11], [20]. Expansion of Barred Owls may have additional adverse effects on Spotted Owl populations if they introduce novel infectious diseases.

Over two decades of intense research on Spotted Owls has made them one of most studied birds in the world. However, little is known about their blood parasites or disease threat [15], [21]–[23]. In one of only two studies of blood parasites in Spotted Owls, Gutiérrez (1989) showed that every Spotted Owl tested had at least one blood parasite (Leucocytozoon or Haemoproteus spp.) and 79% had simultaneous multi-species infections [19, Table 1]. Interestingly, neither study by Greiner (n = 1 individual) or Gutiérrez (n = 105) recorded Plasmodium infections in the Spotted Owl [19], [22].

Table 1. Previous research on Spotted and Barred Owl haematozoa

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002304.t001

At least nine studies have analyzed blood parasites in one or more Barred Owls (n = 64; Table 1) [24]–[32]. From these studies, 43 of 64 (67%) Barred Owls examined were infected with at least one blood parasite. There were seven documented cases of Plasmodium infections (Table 1) including discovery of a new taxonomically distinct Plasmodium species (subgenus Novyella) [25]. Telford et al. (1997), found Barred Owls had longer and wider asexually dividing cells (a.k.a. schizonts) of P. forresteri than seven other raptor species living in Florida, suggesting that they might have a morphologically distinct Plasmodium strain [28].

Nine morphologically distinct haemosporidian blood parasites (order Haemosporidia) have been recorded in owls: Haemoproteus noctuae, H. syrnii, Plasmodium subpraecox, P. fallax, P. forresteri, P. gundersi, P. hexamerium, P. elongatum, and one species of Leucocytozoon, L. danilewskyi ( = L. ziemanni) [33]. While the concept of a species is currently in flux, there is evidence of cryptic speciation of haemosporidian blood parasites from genetic sequencing [34]–[36]. There is also evidence for genetic variation in the cytochrome b gene within microscopically-defined morphospecies [37], [38]. Plasmodium, Haemoproteus, and Leucocytozoon spp. are spread to avian hosts via insect vectors, mosquitoes (Culicidae), biting midges (Ceratopogonidae), hippoboscid flies (Hippoboscidae), and black flies (Simuliidae), respectively [33]. In general, Plasmodium spp. are thought to be more pathogenic than Haemoproteus or Leucocytozoon because they display a lower degree of host specificity, and cause a more severe blood pathology [33], [39]–[41]. However, numerous species of Leucocytozoon and some hemoproteids also cause disease in birds [33], [42]–[44]; thus different species of haemosporidian parasites can have differing effects on avian hosts.

Blood parasites are indicators of immune quality in birds, and parasite prevalence data can be used to reveal information about individual and population fitness [45]–[48]. Many species of blood parasites are generally thought to be harmless because they appear in otherwise healthy looking birds [45]. However, research has shown that blood parasites can have negative fitness impacts on the host [47]–[53]. Parasites can be pathogenic during energy-demanding or stressful phases of a host's life such as the first year [49], [50], migration [51], [52], breeding [48], [53], [54], and years of low food abundance [54], [55]. Research has also shown that parasitic infections can negatively impact reproductive success by delaying arrival to the breeding grounds [56], reducing clutch sizes [47], [54], [57], reducing nest defense behavior [58], [59], increasing probability of clutch desertion [60], reducing hatching success [47], [60], reducing fledging success [47], and siring nestlings with poorer body condition [57]. From a global perspective, cumulative effects of blood parasites on individuals can have serious consequences on host populations [45]. Blood parasites can also be extremely virulent when introduced to an immunologically naïve species [4], [33], [43], [44].

We surveyed haemosporidian parasites from the blood of twelve western North American owl species using PCR and DNA sequencing techniques. We examined the phylogenetic relationships, host specificities, and distributions among hosts with the intention to determine whether Barred Owls may be the source of novel parasites to Spotted Owl populations on the West Coast of North America. We also studied blood samples from Europe and Africa to help elucidate phylogeographic relationships of haemosporidian parasites in owls.

Results Top

Prevalence of Blood Parasites

Five hundred forty two individuals (317 belonging to the Strigidae, and 225 belonging to the Tytonidae) from twelve owl species were tested for Plasmodium, Haemoproteus, and Leucocytozoon spp. parasites (Table 2) using PCR techniques. In the Strigidae family, the overall prevalence of infection was 62% (n = 197), while 24% (n = 54) of the Tytonidae family had at least one blood parasite infection. Prevalences for the three haemosporidian parasites varied within and between families.

Table 2. Prevalence of haematozoa infections in Strigiformes

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002304.t002

PCR and microscopy techniques indicated blood parasite prevalences ranged from zero in Barn Owls from Denmark (n = 45), to 100% in the African owls. The African owls (n = 3) had at least three blood parasite species identified by blood smear analysis. One individual Sjöstedt's Owlet (Glaucidium sjostedti) was infected with five morphologically distinct haemosporidians (Leucocytozoon danilewskyi, Haemoproteus noctuae, Haemoproteus syrnii, Plasmodium (subgenus Haemamoeba) sp., and Plasmodium (subgenus Giovannolaia) sp.).

Prevalences also varied between Spotted Owl subspecies in this study. The California Spotted Owl was significantly more likely to be infected with a blood parasites (p<0.007; χ² = 7.36) and also has significantly more multiple infections (p = 0.002; χ² = 9.18) than the Northern Spotted Owl. When compared to owls belonging to the same taxonomic family (Strigidae total numbers from Table 2), the California Spotted Owl and Northern Spotted Owls had significantly more Haemoproteus infections (S. o. occidentalis p = 0.0001, χ² = 30.83; S. o. caurina p = 0.0001, χ² = 15.36), and the California Spotted Owl had significantly less Plasmodium infections (p = 0.05; χ² = 3.77). Even though the Northern Spotted Owl prevalence was also low (n = 1), it was not significantly different from the other Strigidae owls. However, finding one individual infected with a Plasmodium infection is significant because it is the first documentation of Spotted Owls with this parasite.

Northern Spotted Owl samples were further tested for change in blood parasite prevalence between ten-year time spans (1994–1996 to 2004–2005) but no statistical differences were found (Table 3). Furthermore, blood parasite prevalences did not differ within the Northern Spotted Owls when compared between states (WA vs. OR) (Table 3).

Table 3. Prevalence of blood parasites in Northern Spotted Owls collected over ten years

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002304.t003

Barred Owl results were divided into two subgroups to examine potential geographic differences (CA, OR, WA vs MN, WI, TX; Table 2). Barred Owls in the historic eastern range had significantly higher prevalences (p = 0.001; χ² = 12.36) and significantly more Plasmodium infections (p = 0.05; χ² = 4.70) than the Barred Owls on the west coast.

The blood parasite prevalence also differed between western Barred Owls and Spotted Owls. Spotted Owls had a higher prevalence of blood parasites (52% in Northern subspecies, 79% in California subspecies) than Barred Owls on the West Coast (15%). These sympatric Barred Owls had significantly lower prevalences of Leucocytozoon (p = 0.001; χ² = 28.75) and Haemoproteus infections (p = 0.001; χ² = 25.80), and fewer cases of multiple infections (p = 0.001; χ² = 20.56) when compared to all Spotted Owls. Barred Owls, however, did have significantly higher Plasmodium spp. prevalences (p = 0.05; χ² = 4.17), but the differences in Plasmodium prevalence were more pronounced when comparing all Spotted Owls with all Barred Owls sampled (p = 0.001; χ² = 14.38) (see Table 2).

DNA Sequencing and Host-Parasite Relationships

Leucocytozoon.

The Leucocytozoon dataset consisted of 623 base pairs of the mitochondrial cytochrome b gene sequenced from 181 owls among eleven species. There were 38 lineages found (including two outgroups) with 219 variable characters and 124 parsimony informative characters. The maximum likelihood heuristic search for the Leucocytozoon analysis yielded 34 trees which varied only at the branch tips (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Maximum likelihood tree (1) of Leucocytozoon from eleven owl species.

Maximum likelihood bootstrap values are shown above the branches (100 replicates) and uncorrected ‘p’ distances are shown below. For explanation of bird abbreviation codes, see Appendix 1. Following each bird abbreviation code is the number of individuals (n) with that particular lineage and the sampling location.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002304.g001

The likelihood tree revealed two Leucocytozoon clades (1 & 2) with relatively high sequence divergence (uncorrected p = 8.05%). The presence of two distinct clades suggests that L. danilewskyi is a cryptic species. A side by side blood smear analysis of Leucocytozoon from blood parasites within Boreal Owls from both clades showed identical morphologies. However, the Barn Owls, which were only found in the first clade, only had the round morph gametocytes of Leucocytozoon present in the blood smears. Typically, elongated and round morph gametocytes develop in Leucocytozoon danilewskyi infections, and they are frequently present simultaneously. In summary, although the morphology of L. danilewskyi appears identical in all blood smears, the mtDNA reveals that there are many different haplotypes/lineages and high genetic divergence, perhaps justifying reclassifying L. danilewskyi into two or more species or subspecies.

The Strigidae family appears to be susceptible to parasites from both clades of Leucocytozoon spp (clade 1 & 2, Figure 1). The Tytonidae (Barn Owls) only had parasite strains from clade 1. This first Leucocytozoon clade has eight haplotypes (lineages) with relatively little variation (uncorrected p = 1.2%). The second Strigidae clade has 28 lineages with an average of 3.7% variation.

Host specificity for Leucocytozoon spp. appears to differ among owl species. The EcoSim rarefaction species richness test on Barn, Western Screech, Spotted, and Great-horned Owls showed that lineage diversity from 30 randomly selected owls for 1000 replications resulted in a low mean diversity for Western Screech (2.65) and Barn Owls (1.99) and a high mean lineage diversity for Spotted Owls (14.99) and Great-horned (14) (Figure 2). Barn Owls and Western Screech Owls appear to have very specific Leucocytozoon strains each with one dominant lineage and one or two less common lineages. In contrast, Spotted Owls and Great-horned Owls showed low specificity and were infected with many different parasite lineages. In addition, we found that Spotted and Great-horned Owls had many unique lineages defined as haplotypes that were not found in any other owl species (Spotted Owls = 12 unique out of 17 total lineages; Great-horned Owls = 10 unique out of 14 total lineages).

Figure 2. The mean species diversity of Leucocytozoon lineages randomly drawn from four owl species (n = 30).

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002304.g002

Plasmodium and Haemoproteus spp.

433 base pairs were sequenced from 106 individuals among 10 owl species. There were 21 unique lineages (10 Plasmodium and 11 Haemoproteus) found with 139 variable sites and 100 parsimony-informative sites. The maximum likelihood heuristic search yielded one tree for Plasmodium and Haemoproteus spp. from ten species of owl (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Maximum likelihood tree for Plasmodium and Haemoproteus parasites in ten owl species.

Maximum likelihood bootstrap values are shown above the branches (1000 replicates) and uncorrected ‘p’ distances are shown below. For explanation of bird abbreviation codes see Table 2. Following each bird abbreviation is the number of individuals (n) with that particular lineage and the sampling location.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002304.g003

In Figure 3, there appears to be four distinct lineages or possible species of Plasmodium present in these owls. One of the Plasmodium species from a Barred Owl can be identified as P. elongatum because it is an identical match to a sequence identified from GenBank (DQ659588). The other three possible species could only be identified to the genus Plasmodium due to the poor quality of available blood smears.

Sequence data identified one Northern Spotted Owl with a Plasmodium parasite. The sequence differs by only one base change from a parasite isolated from one invasive Barred Owl but also other native California owls (3 Great-horned Owls, and 13 Western Screech Owls).

In the Haemoproteus clade, one dominant lineage (n = 55) was isolated from four owl species (Spotted Owl, Barred Owl, Great-horned Owl, and African Wood Owl) and from North America and Africa. Additionally, Long-eared Owls from North America and Europe shared an identical Haemoproteus strain. The global commonality of blood parasites within these owls provides evidence that these blood parasites have no distinct phylogeographic pattern. Also, Barn Owls appear to have a unique Haemoproteus lineage although the prevalence of this parasite in the population remains low (1.3%).

Discussion Top

Prevalence of Blood Parasite

The prevalence of blood parasites varied highly among owl species. The lowest prevalences were documented in Barn Owls from Denmark. Four previous studies from northern Europe also detected no blood parasites in Barn Owls (n = 26) [61]–[66]. This suggests that the habitats of Barn Owls in Denmark and other Northern European countries are less suitable for blood parasite vectors [67]. The African owls, in contrast, came from forested habitats with a diverse vector fauna resulting in high prevalences and a high number of co-infections; up to five different haemosporidian species in one individual [68].

The number of Spotted Owls found with a blood parasite (S . o. caurina = 52% and S. o. occidentalis 79%) in this study, although high, is significantly lower than the 100% prevalence seen in Gutiérrez's (1989) study (p = 0.001; χ² = 59.39). The Northern Spotted Owl prevalence of all haemosporidians over a ten year time span (Table 3) shows that the blood parasite prevalences compared between the years 1994–1996 and 2004–2005 were not statistically different. Therefore, the differences between this study and Gutiérrez's (1989) results may not represent a decline in blood parasite infections over time, but may have been due to other reasons such as differing blood parasite detection methods. This study is the first to use PCR based detection of blood parasites in Spotted Owls, which has been proven to yield much greater sensitivity than older microscopy techniques [69]. Yet, a recent study found although PCR assays were sufficient in finding single parasite infections, it may underestimate cases with multiple parasite infections [46].

Another difference between our study and Gutierrez's is the sampling locations. The 1989 study examined California Spotted Owls from four different locations (Sierra Nevada, San Jacinto Mountains, San Bernadino Mountains, and Palomar Mountains), and the Northern Spotted Owl samples were from northwestern California [19]. The California Spotted Owls in this study came from one Sierra Nevada location, and the Northern Spotted Owls came from California locations as well as Oregon and Washington. Other factors that could contribute to the differing prevalence rates include time of year the owls were sampled, annual variations, age of host [70], and environmental conditions [71].

In a broad sense, the variation in blood parasite prevalences observed between host species and geographic locations in Table 2 could be partially explained by differential exposure to vectors [33], [72]–[74]. Prevalence of a parasite in a host can reflect the amount of contact with a vector; a species with more exposure to vectors should have higher prevalence rates than a species with less exposure [33]. Increased vector exposure leading to increased parasite risks are associated with tropical zones [75], forest habitats [67], migration [73], colonial behavior [76], body size [77], cavity nesting [76], shortened period of embryonic growth [78], and bright plumage coloration [77].

In contrast, research has shown that even taxonomically related bird species sharing similar habitat types may have varying blood parasite prevalences due to differing life histories or vector preferences [72], [73], [76]. For example, black flies and mosquitoes will feed preferentially on certain hosts [79]–[81]. However, one would still anticipate that Spotted Owls and Barred Owls living in sympatry to have comparable infection rates. Our prediction was that these two owl species would have high blood parasite prevalence rates since they share many qualities that would increase vector exposure such as large body size, long life span, cavity nesting, long fledging period, and habitation of forested areas [33], [73], [76]. Spotted and Barred Owls should also have similar prevalences because they are closely-related sister taxa, sharing similar habitats, life histories, relative body size, and plumage coloration [11]. Contradictory to expectations, we found that Barred Owls on the West Coast have significantly lower prevalences for Leucocytozoon, Haemoproteus, and fewer cases of simultaneous multiple infections than both subspecies of Spotted Owls. The following three hypotheses can account for differences in Barred Owl and Spotted Owl parasite prevalence: 1) dissimilar micro-habitat preferences leading to differential vector exposure, 2) the West Coast region has a different parasite fauna as compared to the historic Barred Owl range, and in particular fewer Plasmodium parasites 3) Barred Owl may have superior immune health. We consider each of these hypotheses below.

First, although Barred Owls and Spotted Owls have overlapping habitat requirements, Barred Owls occupy a wider range of habitats [11]. Barred Owls on the West Coast have been shown to prefer riparian habitats, and unlike Spotted Owls, they can utilize young and mature forests for foraging and breeding [11], [82]. Because of this, it is plausible that their preferred micro-habitats results in differential vector contact, which would cause differing blood parasite prevalences [33].

Secondly, the lower overall prevalence of blood parasites for Barred Owls on the West Coast may be due to less exposure to Plasmodium. Another study on blood parasite prevalence did not discover any Plasmodium parasites from hawks and owls from the California Raptor Center (n = 55) in Davis, California [83]. We observed that two of 26 Barred Owls (8%) were infected with Plasmodium on the West Coast as compared to 6 individuals out of 11 (33%) from the historic range. This suggests that the Barred Owls are susceptible, but show less prevalence of Plasmodium spp. in some regions of the western U.S. Perhaps a low abundance or lack of appropriate mosquito vectors in the northern West Coast region could be preventing the spread of Plasmodium parasites. This theory would also explain why Spotted Owls have not been documented with Plasmodium spp. With a lower risk of Plasmodium infections in this area, Barred Owls could have a competitive advantage over Spotted Owls.

Finally, even if Plasmodium parasites are rare in the West, Barred Owls should have similar exposure to Leucocytozoon and Haemoproteus. Instead, the Barred Owls have low parasite prevalences for parasites of all three genera, and the observed discrepancy between Barred and Spotted Owl prevalences could be explained by a better host immune response to the parasites. Furthermore, molecular evidence shows that Northern Spotted Owls have recently experienced a population bottleneck resulting in a loss of genetic variation [84]. This loss of genetic variability may play a role in a reduced ability to cope with blood parasite infections resulting in a weakened immune health.

Symptoms of blood parasite infections can range from mild to severe depending on host susceptibility [85], host fitness status at the time of infection (e.g., nutritional health or reproductive effort) [48], [55], parasite and host genetics [86], acquired immunity [87], and environmental stress [71]. Although this study did not clinically assess symptoms or measure the intensity of parasitemia, we can still assume a higher immune cost associated with multiple parasite infections. In cases of multiple infections, more of the host's resources are being exploited, which increases virulence or severity of the disease [76]. In an extreme example, second year Purple Martins (Progne subis) had multiple infections of Haemoproteus spp. and a filarial nematode resulted in a 90% fatality rate [88]. The sheer number of Spotted Owls with multiple parasite infections supports the notion that the Spotted Owls have weakened immune systems.

DNA Sequencing and Host-Parasite Relationships

The Leucocytozoon parasites found in eleven owl species studied appear to comprise at least two cryptic species or subspecies. Only one Leucocytozoon species (L. danilewskyi) has been accepted as valid among all owls, and in this study, Leucocytozoon parasites examined microscopically were morphologically indistinguishable (although slide quality was often poor). Yet, there are two distinctly different clades with an average uncorrected p sequence divergence of 8.05%. Recent studies of Haemoproteus morphospecies suggest that greater than 5% sequence divergence in the cytochrome b gene between two lineages is indicative of distinct species [37]. In addition, intraspecific variation is likely to be apparent in Leucocytozoon species of owls, as was shown with L. schoutedeni of chickens, and in other haemosporidians [34], [38]. Thus, even though Leucocytozoon danilewskyi was traditionally thought to be one species, sequencing revealed that it has more than double the number of lineages (n = 36) than Haemoproteus (n = 11) and Plasmodium (n = 10) parasites in owls. This diversity is probably attributable to a combination of cryptic speciation and intraspecific variation.

Spotted Owls have high lineage diversity with the most Leucocytozoon lineages (n = 17) compared to the other owl species, and also 12 lineages that were unique, found only in Spotted Owls hosts. In theory, when a parasite strain has coevolved with a specific host, the parasite imposes a lessened effect on host fitness [89], [90]. Likewise, parasites that are not constrained to a specific host are thought to be more virulent. This has been documented in Plasmodium species [43], [44], [91]. The data suggest that Leucocytozoon spp. have low host specificity for Spotted Owls, which implies that Spotted Owls have an increased risk of infection by novel parasites with potentially increased virulence.

Although, this is the first study to show a Spotted Owl infected with a Plasmodium parasite, there is no conclusive evidence that this parasite originated from Barred Owls since it was also found in other native California owls, and may have already been present at low levels in local bird populations. This study would benefit from larger sample sizes for Barred Owls and Spotted Owls to better determine whether Barred Owls have introduced novel blood parasites. Future work should focus on the combination of blood parasite analysis along with immunity tests and estimated annual survival and reproductive rate for banded Spotted Owls. Utilization of immunity tests and survival estimates would give researchers a better understanding of the effect of blood parasites in the Spotted Owl, and perhaps help determine if some parasite strains are more virulent than others. Additionally, museum specimens of Spotted Owls and other California owls should be tested for blood parasites to see if species of Plasmodium have been in this area historically, and to see if Spotted Owls have always had high Leucocytozoon lineage diversity.

This study provides a baseline for the distribution of blood parasites and strains in owls. This research suggests that Northern and California Spotted Owls have a fragile immune health due to the high numbers of multiple parasite infections, the possible introduction of Plasmodium, and their low parasite specificity. Additionally, Barred Owls have only recently begun to colonize the Sierra Nevada and further research on this population of California Spotted Owls and Mexican Spotted Owls prior to invasion could help reveal the Barred Owl's role in spreading disease and whether or not they contribute to a decline in Spotted Owl immune health. Overall, results are important as conservation measures are planned for all three subspecies of the Spotted Owl.

Methods Top

Blood, DNA, and liver tissue samples (n = 542) were donated by eight organizations (Table 4). Blood samples donated from rehabilitation centers were taken from owls when they were first submitted to the clinic. Samples collected from wild birds were taken from apparently healthy individuals that were banded and then released. All blood samples were collected from the years 2003 to 2006, except for some of the Northern Spotted Owls (1 from 1992, 15 from 1994–1995, 5 from 1996, 4 from 2000, 28 from 2004–2005, and 9 unknown dates) and Barred Owls (7 from 1990–1994, 2 from 2001, 22 from 2003–2006, and 13 unknown dates) collected by S. Haig. Most blood parasite analyses were performed on birds sampled during peak transmission times in spring and summer (n = 349 April to September), while 76 were sampled during the autumn and winter months (Oct–Mar), and 117 samples did not have a date of capture.

Table 4. Organizations and locations of donated owl tissue samples.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002304.t004

The blood and liver samples (50–100 ul) were stored in lysis buffer (10mM Tris-HCL pH 8.0, 100mM ethylenediaminetetracetic acid, 2% sodium dodecyl sulphate) and kept frozen in a −20°C freezer. However, one set of blood samples from the Zoological Museum University of Copenhagen (n = 45) were not stored in lysis buffer and were kept in −80°C freezers. In some cases, blood smears were also made, fixed in methanol, and stained with Giemsa [92], [93]. Since many blood samples were donated to this study after the bird had been sampled, we do not have blood smears for every sample.

Blood Parasite Detection

DNA was extracted using a DNeasy kit and following the animal tissue protocol (Qiagen). To test for Leucocytozoon spp., extracted DNA was used in a nested PCR reaction that amplifies the cytochrome b region of the mtDNA. The first round of amplification used the following primers: DW2: 5′-TAA TGC CTA GAC GTA TTC CTG ATT ATC CAG-3′, and DW4: 5′-TGT TTG CTT GGG AGC TGT AAT CAT AAT GTG-3′ [35]. The first PCR reaction was performed using the following conditions: twenty-five-microliter reaction mixtures contained 10–100 ng of genomic DNA (2 ml of template DNA), 0.5 units of Qiagen Taq DNA Polymerase (Qiagen), 10 mM Tris-HCl (pH 8.3), 50 mM KCl, 3.0 mM MgCl2, 0.4 mM of each primer, 0.4 mM of each dNTP, and 5 ml of Q buffer (Qiagen Inc., Valencia, California). The cycling profile consisted of an initial denaturation at 94°C for 3 min, followed by 35 cycles of 94°C denaturation for 30 sec, 52°C annealing for 30 sec, and 72°C extension for 1 min. The samples went through a final extension at 72°C for 10 min. The second PCR reaction used the first PCR product to seed the reaction instead of DNA template with the following primers: Leuco Cyt F: 5′-TCT TAC TGG TGT ATT ATT AGC AAC-3′, and Leuco Cyt R: 5′-AGC ATA GAA TGT GCA AAT AAA CC-3′ [34]. The reaction conditions using the second primer set was identical to the first round and used a similar cycling profile with a 50°C annealing temperature.

For Plasmodium and Haemoproteus spp., we used the same PCR reaction conditions as above with the following primers: L15183: 5′-GTG CAA CYG TTA TTA CTA ATT TAT A-3′ and H15730: 5′-CAT CCA ATC CAT AAT AAA GCA T-3′ [94], [95]. The cycling profile consisted of an initial denaturing at 94°C for 3 min, followed by 35 cycles of 94°C for 50 sec, 53°C annealing for 50 sec, and 72°C extension for 60 sec, and then a final extension at 72°C for 5 min.

Positive and negative controls were used for the detection of Plasmodium, Haemoproteus, and Leucocytozoon spp. Positive controls were from birds with known infections evident from microscopy results. Negative controls used purified water in place of DNA template. PCR products were run out on a 1.8% agarose gel using 1xTBE, and visualized by an ethidium bromide stain under ultraviolet light. Some owl samples with good quality blood smears were viewed under a microscope for further parasite detection and to check for accuracy. Slides were examined for 10–15 minutes at low magnification (400×) and then at least 100 fields were studied at high magnification (1000×).

DNA Sequencing

Bi-directional cycle sequencing was performed using the second primer set (Leuco Cyt F and Leuco Cyt R) for the Leucocytozoon spp. samples and the original primer set (L15183 and H15730) for the Plasmodium and Haemoproteus spp. samples. The positive PCR products were sequenced in an ABI Prism 3100 automated sequencer (Applied Biosystems, Inc., Foster City, CA). For cases where there were multiple parasite infections, evident by double peaks on the chromatogram, the TOPO TA Cloning Kit (Invitrogen Corp., Carlsbad, CA) was used following manufacturer instructions to isolate parasite strains. Ninety seven percent of Plasmodium and Haemoproteus spp. positives and 79.5% of Leucocytozoon spp. positives were successfully sequenced. The remaining 20.5% of Leucocytozoon positives could not be sequenced due to illegible sequence profiles, unsuccessful cloning, or insufficient quantities of DNA template.

The sequences were deposited in GenBank with the following accession numbers EU627791-EU627845.

Analysis

All DNA sequences were edited using Sequencher 3.1 (GeneCodes, Ann Arbor, MI) and MacClade 3.0 and 4.03 PPC [96]. For distinguishing between Plasmodium and Haemoproteus spp., the sequences were compared to their closest sequence matches in GenBank using the NCBI nucleotide blast search and by confirmation through microscopy slides. Modeltest 3.7 [97] was used to identify the best model for each dataset; GTR+G was chosen for Leucocytozoon, Plasmodium, and Haemoproteus spp.

Phylogenetic relationships were constructed for Leucocytozoon and Plasmodium and Haemoproteus spp. parasites in PAUP* 4.0b10 [98]. A maximum likelihood heuristic search with 100 replicates for Leucocytozoon and 1000 replicates Plasmodium and Haemoproteus spp was performed with a TBR branch-swapping algorithm and a neighbor-joining tree used as the starting tree.

In order to summarize the results, the bootstrap values and genetic distances, estimated using the uncorrected ‘p’ distance setting, were added to the final maximum likelihood phylograms. Parsimony and neighbor-joining trees were computed for all parasites and all showed similar topographies as the maximum likelihood trees.

A Plasmodium parasite from an owl and Leucocytozoon toddi were chosen as the outgroups for the Leucocytozoon trees, and an owl Leucocytozoon was the designated outgroup for the Plasmodium/Haemoproteus tree. These outgroups were chosen because Plasmodium and Leucocytozoon are sister taxa [35]. A Leucocytozoon toddi sequence (DQ177250) from GenBank was also placed in the Leucocytozoon phylogram to further resolve the backbone of the tree. Three additional sequences for the Plasmodium/Haemoproteus analyses were obtained from GenBank including: Haemoproteus sp. from a Great-horned Owl and Barred Owl (AF465589), Plasmodium sp. from a Singapore Brown Hawk Owl (Ninox scutulata) (AY099035), and Plasmodium elongatum from a Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias) (DQ659588).

Statistical comparisons of parasite prevalence among owl species were conducted as binomial comparative trials with results presented as Yates corrected Chi Square's. A p value of 0.05 or less was considered significant. We also tested for Leucocytozoon lineage diversity among the four owl species with largest sample sizes (Barn Owl, Western Screech Owl, Spotted Owl, and Great-horned Owl) using EcoSim 7.0 that provides rarefaction estimates [99]. The program randomly sampled 25 lineages from each owl species for 1000 iterations to create a mean and variance of lineage diversity.

Acknowledgments Top

We are grateful to the many organizations and volunteers who helped collect blood samples used in this project. A special thanks to Eric Forsman (U.S. Forest Service Pacific Northwest Forest Station, Corvallis, OR) and the Conservation Genetics Lab at the USGS Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center (Corvallis, OR) for collecting most of the Northern Spotted Owl samples used for this study. The California Spotted Owl samples were kindly donated through John Keane and the Sierra Nevada Research Center. The two unique Scops Owl samples from Kazakhstan were collected by Dr. Michail J. Markovets, Biological Station of the Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences. Thanks to Tatjana Iezhova for help with the microscopy analysis. Finally, we appreciate the advice, encouragement, and laboratory assistance from Craig Reading, Frank Cipriano, and Carmen DeLeon.

References Top

1. Daszak P, Cunningham AA, Hyatt AD (2000) Emerging infectious diseases of wildlife-threats to biodiversity and human health. Science 287: 443–449. Find this article online
2. Harvell CD, Mitchell CE, Ward JR, Altizer S, Dobson AP, et al. (2002) Climate warming and disease risks for terrestrial and marine biota. Science 21: 2158–2162. Find this article online
3. Shea K, Thrall PH, Burdon JJ (2000) An integrated approach to management in epidemiology and pest control. Ecol Lett 3: 150–158. Find this article online
4. Woodworth BL, Atkinson CT, LaPointe DA, Hart PJ, Spiegal CS, et al. (2005) Host population persistance in the face of introduced vector-borne diseases: Hawaii amakihi and avian malaria. P Natl Acad Sci USA 102: 1531–1536. Find this article online
5. Rappole JH, Hubálek Z (2006) Birds and influenza H5N1 virus movement to and within North America. Emerg Infect Dis 12: 1486–1492. Find this article online
6. Komar N, Langevin S, Hinten S, Nemeth N, Edwards E, et al. (2003) Experimental infection of North American birds with the New York 1999 strain of West Nile Virus. Emerg Infect Dis 9: 311–322. Find this article online
7. Fauci AS (2003) HIV and AIDS: 20 years of science. Nat Med 9: 839–843. Find this article online
8. Daszak P, Cunningham AA (2003) Anthropogenic change, biodiversity loss, and a new agenda for emerging diseases. J Parasitol 89: S37–S41. Find this article online
9. Kilpatrick AM, LaPointe DA, Atkinson CT, Woodworth BL, Lease JK, et al. (2006) Effects of chronic avian malaria (Plasmodium relictum) infection on reproductive success of Hawaii Amakihi (Hemignathus virens). Auk 123: 764–774. Find this article online
10. Deredec A, Courcham F (2001) Sex-specific associations between reproduction output and hematozoan parasites of American Kestrels. Oecologia 126: 193–200. Find this article online
11. Gutiérrez RJ, Cody M, Courtney S, Kennedy D (2004) Assessment of the potential threat of the Northern Barred Owl. In: Courtney SP, Blakesley J, Bigley R, Cody M, Dumbacher J, et al., editors. Scientific evaluation of the status of the Northern Spotted Owl. Portland, OR: Sustainable Ecosystems Institute. pp. 1–51.
12. Sakai H (2005) Range expansion of the Barred Owls into Redwood National and State Parks: management implications and consequences for threatened Northern Spotted Owls. Park Science 24: 24–27, 50. Find this article online
13. US Department of the Interior (1990) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Determination of Threatened Status for the Northern Spotted Owls Final Rule. Federal Register, Part VI 55: 123. Find this article online
14. Dark SJ, Gutierrez RJ, Gould GI (1998) The invasion of Barred Owls (Strix varia) in California: Potential impacts on the Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis). Auk 115: 50–56. Find this article online
15. Courtney SP, Franklin A (2004) Information Needs. In: Courtney SP, Blakesley JA, Bigley RE, Cody ML, Dumbacher J, et al., editors. Scientific evaluation of the status of the Northern Spotted Owl. Portland, OR: Sustainable Ecosystems Institute. pp. 1–18.
16. Grant J (1966) The Barred Owl in British Columbia. Murrelet 47: 39–45. Find this article online
17. Hume M (2007) B.C.'s spotted owl near extinction. The Globe and Mail. Toronto.
18. Taylor AL, Forsman ED (1976) Recent range extensions of the Barred Owl in Western North American including the first records for Oregon. Condor 78: 560–561. Find this article online
19. Monahan WB, Hijmans RJ (2007) Distributional dynamics of invasion and hybridization by Strix spp. in Western North America. Ornithol Monogr 63: 55–66. Find this article online
20. Gutiérrez RJ, Franklin AB, Lahaye WS (1995) Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis). In: Poole A, Gill F, editors. The American Ornithologists' Union. Philadelphia, PA: The Academy of Natural Sciences and Washington DC.
21. Gutiérrez RJ (1989) Hematozoa from the Spotted Owl. J Wildlife Dis 25: 614–618. Find this article online
22. La Haye W (2004) Northern Spotted Owl Biology. In: Courtney SP, Blakesley JA, Bigley RE, Cody ML, Dumbacher JP, et al., editors. Scientific evaluation of the status of the Northern Spotted Owl. 2, 9Portland, OR: Sustainable Ecosystems Institute.
23. Noon BR, Franklin AB (2002) Scientific research and the Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis): opportunities for major contributions to avian population ecology. Auk 119: 1291–1298. Find this article online
24. Greiner EC, Bennett GF, White EM, Coombs RF (1975) Distribution of the avian hematozoa of North America. Can J Zool 53: 1762–1786. Find this article online
25. Telford SR, Forrester DJ (1992) Morphological comparisons of the Plasmodium (Novyella) species reported from North American birds, with comments on a species from the barred owl Strix varia Barton. Syst Parasitol 22: 17–24. Find this article online
26. Williams NA, Bennett GF (1978) Hematozoa of some birds of New Jersey and Maryland. Can J Zool 56: 596–603. Find this article online
27. Wetmore PW (1941) Blood parasites of the District of Columbia and Patuxent Research Refuge vicinity. J Parasitol 27: 379–393. Find this article online
28. Telford SR, Nayar JK, Foster GW, Knight JW (1997) Plasmodium forresteri n.sp., from raptors in Florida and southern Georgia: Its distinction from Plasmodium elongatum morphologically within and among host species and by vector susceptibility. J Parasitol 83: 932–937. Find this article online
29. Olsen GH, Gaunt SD (1985) Effect of hemoprotozoal infections on rehabilitation of wild raptors. J Am Vet Med Assoc 187: 1204–1205. Find this article online
30. Hart JW (1949) Observations on blood parasites of birds in South Carolina. J Parasitol 35: 79–82. Find this article online
31. Forrester DJ, Telford SR, Foster GW Jr, Bennett GF (1994) Blood parasites of raptors in Florida. J Raptor Res 28: 226–231. Find this article online
32. Kirkpatrick CE, Lauer DM (1985) Hematozoa of raptors from southern New Jersey and adjacent areas. J Wildlife Dis 21: 1–6. Find this article online
33. Valkiunas G (2005) Avian malaria parasites and other Haemosporidia. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
34. Sehgal RNM, Hull AC, Anderson NL, Valkiunas G, Markovets MJ, et al. (2006) Evidence for Cryptic Speciation of Leucocytozoon spp. (Haemosporida, Leucocytozoidae) in Diurnal Raptors. J Parasitol 92: 375–379. Find this article online
35. Perkins SL, Schall JJ (2002) A molecular phylogeny of malarial parasites recovered from cytochrome b gene sequences. J Parasitol 88: 972–978. Find this article online
36. Bensch S, Pérez-Tris J, Waldenstrom J, Hellgren O (2004) Linkage between nuclear and mitochondrial DNA sequences in avian malaria parasites: multiple cases of cryptic speciation? Evolution 58: 1617–1621. Find this article online
37. Hellgren O, Križanuskiene A, Valkiunas G, Bensch S (2007) Diversity and phylogeny of mitochondrial cytochrome b lineages from six morphospecies of avian Haemoproteus (Haemosporidia: Haemoproteidae). J Parasitol 93: 889–896. Find this article online
38. Palinauskas V, Kosarev V, Shapoval A, Bensch S, Valkiunas G (2007) Comparison of mitochondrial cytochrome b lineages and morphospecies of two avian malaria parasites of the subgenera Haemamoeba and Giovannolaia (Haemosporidia: Plasmodiidae). Zootaxa 1626: 39–50. Find this article online
39. Ricklefs RE, Fallon SM, Bermingham E (2004) Evolutionary relationships, cospeciation, and host switching in avian malaria parasites. Syst Biol 53: 111–119. Find this article online
40. Beadell JS, Ishtiaq F, Covas R, Melo M, Warren BH, et al. (2006) Global phylogeographic limits of Hawaii's avian malaria. P Roy Soc Lond B 273: 2935–2944. Find this article online
41. Hellgren O, Waldenstrom J, Perez-Tris J, Szollosi E, Hasselquist D, et al. (2006) Detecting shifts of transmission areas in avian blood parasites- a phylogenetic approach. Mol Ecol 16: 1281–1290. Find this article online
42. Miltgen F, Landau I, Ratanaworabhan N, Yenbutra S (1981) Parahaemoproteus desseri n. sp.; Gamétogonie et schizogonie chez l'hôte naturel: Psittacula roseata de Thailande, et sporogonie expérimentale chez Culicoides nubeculosus. Annales de Parasitologie Humaine et Comparee 56: 123–130. Find this article online
43. Atkinson CT, Woods KL, Dusek RJ, Sileo LS, Iko WM (1995) Wildlife disease and conservation in Hawaii: pathogenicity of avian malaria (Plasmodium relictum) in experimentally infected Iiwi (Vestiaria coccinea). Parasitol 111: S59–S69. Find this article online
44. Atkinson CT, Dusek RJ, Woods KL, Iko WM (2000) Pathogenicity of avian malaria in experimentally-infected Hawaii Amakihi. J Wildlife Dis 36: 197–204. Find this article online
45. Remple JD (2004) Intracellular Hematozoa of raptors: a review and update. J Avian Med Surg 18: 75–88. Find this article online
46. Valkiunas G, Bensch S, Iezhova TA, Križanauskiene A, Hellgren O, et al. (2006) Nested cytochrome b polymerase chain reaction diagnostics underestimate mixed infections of avian blood Haemosporidian parasites: microscopy is still essential. J Parasitol 92: 418–422. Find this article online
47. Marzal A, De Lope F, Navarro C, Moller AP (2005) Malaria parasites decrease reproductive success: an experimental study in a passerine bird. Oecologia 142: 541–545. Find this article online
48. Nordling D, Anderson M, Zohari S, Gustafsson L (1998) Reproductive effort reduces specific immune response and parasite resistance. P Roy Soc Lond B 265: 1291–1298. Find this article online
49. Leppert LL, Layman S, Bragin EA, Katzner T (2004) Survey for Hemoparasites in Imperial Eagles (Aquila heliaca), Steppe Eagles (Aquila nipalensis), and White-tailed Sea Eagles (Haliaeetus albicilla) from Kazakhstan. J Wildlife Dis 40: 316–319. Find this article online
50. Hunter BD, Rohner C, Currie DC (1997) Mortality in fledgling Great-horned Owls from black fly Hematophaga and Leucocytozoonosis. J Wildlife Dis 33: 486–491. Find this article online
51. Clarabuch O, Gonzalez-Solis J (1998) Parasitism as a migration cost. Biologia e Conservazione della Fauna 102: 113–117. Find this article online
52. Dawson RD, Bortolotti GR (2000) Effects of hematozoan parasites on condition and return rates of American Kestrels. Auk 117: 373–380. Find this article online
53. Stjernman M, Raberg L, Nilsson JA (2004) Survival costs of reproduction in the blue tit (Parus caeruleus): a role for blood parasites? Proc R Soc Lond B 271: 2387–2394. Find this article online
54. Korpimaki E, Hakkarainen H, Bennett GF (1993) Blood parasites and reproductive success of Tengmalm's owls: detrimental effects on females but not on males? Functional Ecology 7: 420–426. Find this article online
55. Appleby BM, Anwar MA, Petty SJ (1999) Short-term and long-term effects of food supply on parasite burdens in Tawny owls, Strix aluco. Funct Ecol 13: 315–321. Find this article online
56. Andrezj D (2005) Male reproductive success is correlated with blood parasite levels and body condition in the promiscuous aquatic warbler (Acrocephalus paludicola). Auk 122: 558–565. Find this article online
57. Dulfa R (1996) Blood parasites, health, reproductive success, and egg volume in female Great Tits Parus major. J Avian Biol 27: 83–87. Find this article online
58. Korpimaki E, Tolonen P, Bennett GF (1995) Blood parasites, sexual selection and reproductive success of European kestrels. Ecoscience 2: 335–343. Find this article online
59. Hakkarainen H, Ilmonen P, Koivunen V, Korpimäki E (1998) Blood parasites and nest defense behavior of Tengmalm's owls. Oecologia 114: 574–577. Find this article online
60. Sanz JJ, Arriero E, Moreno J, Merino S (2001) Female Hematozoan infection reduces hatching success but not fledging success in Pied Flycatchers Ficedula hypoleuca. Auk 118: 750–755. Find this article online
61. Peirce MA, Greenwood AG, Cooper JE (1983) Haematozoa of raptors and other birds from Britian, Spain, and the United Arab Emirates. Avian Pathol 12: 447–459. Find this article online
62. Peirce MA, Marquiss M (1983) Haematozoa of British birds. VII. Haematozoa of raptors in Scotland with a description of Haemoproteus nisi sp. nov. from the sparrow-hawk (Accipiter nisus). J Nat Hist 17: 813–821. Find this article online
63. Sacchi L, Prigioni C (1984) Occurance of Leucocytozoon and Haemoproteus (Apicomplexa, Haemosporina) in Falconiformes and Strigiformes of Italy. Annales de Parasitologie Humaine et Comparee 59: 219–226. Find this article online
64. Mikaelian I, Bayol P (1991) Blood protozoa found in birds of prey undergoing rehabilitation. Le Point Veterinare 22: 857–860. Find this article online
65. Lierz M, Gobel T, Schuster R (2002) Occurrence of parasites in indigenous birds of prey and owls. Berliner und Munchener Tierartztiche Wochenschrift 115: 43–52. Find this article online
66. Krone O, Priemer J, Streich J, Sommer P, Langgemach T, et al. (2001) Haemosporida of birds of prey and owls from Germany. Acta Protozoologica 40: 281–289. Find this article online
67. Tella JL, Blanco G, Forero MG, Gajón Á, Donázar JA, et al. (1999) Habitat, world geographic range, and embryonic development of hosts explain the prevalence of avian hematozoa at a small spatial and phylogenetic scales. P Natl Acad Sci USA 96: 1785–1789. Find this article online
68. Sehgal RNM, Jones HI, Smith TB (2005) Blood Parasites of Some West African Rainforest Birds. J Vet Med Sci 67: 295–301. Find this article online
69. Richard FA, Sehgal RNM, Jones HI, Smith TB (2002) A comparative analysis of PCR-based detection methods for avian malaria. J Parasitol 88: 819–822. Find this article online
70. Deviche P, Greiner EC, Manteca X (2001) Seasonal and age-related changes in blood parasites prevalence in dark-eyed juncos (Junco hyemalis, Aves, Passeriformes). J Exp Zool 289: 456–466. Find this article online
71. Oppliger A, Clobert J, Lecomte J, Lorenzon P, Boudjemadi K, et al. (1998) Environmental stress increases the prevalence and intensity of blood parasite infection in the common lizard Lacerta vivipara. Ecol Lett 1: 129–138. Find this article online
72. Yezerinac SM, Weatherhead PJ (1995) Plumage coloration, differential attraction of vectors and haematozoa infections in birds. J Anim Ecol 64: 528–537. Find this article online
73. Møller AP, Erritozøe J (1998) Host immune defence and migration in birds. Evol Ecol 12: 945–953. Find this article online
74. Møller AP, Martin-Vivaldi M, Soler JJ (2004) Parasitism, host immune defence and dispersal. J Evol Biol 17: 603–612. Find this article online
75. Durrant KL, Beadell JS, Ishtiaq F, Graves GR, Olson SL, et al. (2006) Avian hematozoa in South America: a comparison of temperate and tropical zones. Ornithol Monogr 60: 98–111. Find this article online
76. Merino S, Møller APAdams NJ, Slotow RH (1999) The coevolution of virulence and immune defence in birds. Proc 22 Int Ornithol Congr, Durban Johannesburg: BirdLife South Africa. 2158–2162. Find this article online
77. Scheuerlein A, Ricklefs RE (2004) Prevalence of blood parasites in European passeriform birds. P Roy Soc Lond B 271: 1363–1370. Find this article online
78. Ricklefs RE (1992) Embryonic development period and the prevalence of avian blood parasites. P Roy Soc Lond B 89: 4722–4725. Find this article online
79. Molaei G, Andreadis TG, Armstrong PM, Anderson JF, Vossbrinck CR (2006) Host feeding patterns of Culex mosquitoes and West Nile virus transmission, northeastern United States. Emerg Infect Dis 12: 468–474. Find this article online
80. Malmquist B, Strasevicius D, Hellgren O, Adler PH, Bensch S (2004) Vertebrate host specificity of wild-caught blackflies revealed by mitochondrial DNA in blood. P Roy Soc Lond B 271: 152–155. Find this article online
81. Kilpatrick AM, Kramer LD, Jones MJ, Marra PP, Daszak P (2006) West Nile Virus epidemics in North America are driven by shifts in mosquito feeding behavior. PLoS Biol 4: e82. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040082. Find this article online
82. Levy S (1999) Owl vs. Owl. J Nat Hist 33: 28–32. Find this article online
83. Ziman M, Colagross-Schouten A, Griffey S, Stedman B (2004) Haemoproteus spp. and Leukocytozoon spp. in a Captive Raptor Population. J Wildlife Dis 40: 137–140. Find this article online
84. Funk CW, Forsman ED, Mullins TD, Haig SM (2008) Pleistocene expansion followed by recent population bottlenecks in northern spotted owls. P Roy Soc Lond B: submitted. Find this article online
85. Atkinson CT, Dusek RJ, Lease JK (2001) Serological responses and immunity to superinfection with avian malaria in experimentally infected Hawaii Amakihi. J Wildlife Dis 37: 20–27. Find this article online
86. Mackinnon MJ, Gunawardena DM, Rajakaruna J, Weerasingha S, Mendis KN, et al. (2000) Quantifying genetic and nongenetic contributions to malarial infection in a Sri Lanka population. P Natl Acad Sci USA 97: 12661–12666. Find this article online
87. Gatton ML, Cheng Q (2004) Modeling the development of acquired clinical immunity to Plasmodium falciparum malaria. Infect Immun 72: 6538–6545. Find this article online
88. Davidar P, Morton ES (2006) Are multiple infections more severe for Purple Martins (Progne subis) than single infections? Auk 123: 141–147. Find this article online
89. Beadell JS, Gering E, Austin J, Dumbacher JP, Pierce MA, et al. (2004) Prevalence and differential host-specificity of two avian blood parasite genera in the Australo-Papuan region. Mol Ecol 13: 3829–3844. Find this article online
90. Bush AO, Fernandez JC, Esch GW, Seed JR (2001) Parasitism: The diversity and ecology of animal parasites; In: Press CU, editor. Cambridge, UK:
91. Bensch S, Stjernman M, Hasselquist D, Ostman O, Hansson B, et al. (2000) Host specificity in avian blood parasites: a study of Plasmodium and Haemoproteus mitochondrial DNA amplified from birds. P Roy Soc Lond B 267: 1583–1589. Find this article online
92. Godfrey RD Jr, Fedynich AM, Pence DB (1987) Quantification of hematozoa in blood smears. J Wildlife Dis 23: 558–565. Find this article online
93. Valkiunas G, Iezhova TA (1997) A comparison of the blood parasites in three subspecies of the Yellow Wagtail Motacilla flava. J Parasitol 87: 930–934. Find this article online
94. Szymanski MM, Lovette IJ (2005) High lineage diversity and host sharing of malarial parasites in a local avian assemblage. J Parasitol 91: 768–774. Find this article online
95. Fallon SM, Bermingham E, Ricklefs RE (2003) Island and taxon effects in parasitism revisited: avian malaria in the Lesser Antilles. Evolution 57: 606–615. Find this article online
96. Maddison D, Maddison W (2002) MacClade 4.03 PPC : analysis of phylogeny and character evolution. 4.03 PPC ed. Sunderland, Massachusetts, USA: Sinauer Associates.
97. Posada D, Crandall KA (1998) Modeltest: testing the model of DNA substitution. Bioinformatics 14: 817–818. Find this article online
98. Swofford DL (2002) PAUP* Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (*and other methods) version 4.0b10. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.
99. Gotelli NJ, Entsminger GL (2006) EcoSim: Null models software for ecology. 7 ed. Jericho, VT: Acquired Intelligence Inc. and Kesey-Bear http://garyentsminger.com/ecosim.htm (accessed June 29, 2007).