European Journal of Forest Research

, Volume 131, Issue 2, pp 389–400 | Cite as

Are endoparasites of common shrews (Sorex araneus) sensitive to tree species conversion in sub-Arctic birch forests?

  • Therese Sigurdsen
  • Åshild Ø. Pedersen
  • Nigel G. Yoccoz
  • Voitto Haukisalmi
  • Rolf A. Ims
Original Paper


Shrews (Soricomorpha) are among the most numerous small forest dwelling mammals in boreal forests ecosystems. In Norway large areas of sub-Arctic birch (Betula pubescens) forests have gradually been replaced by non-native spruce (Picea abies) plantations during the last century. This conversion has led to changes in forest floor vegetation and soil conditions which negatively influence invertebrates serving as prey for shrews and intermediate hosts for shrew endoparasites (helminths). In this trapping study we assessed if abundance and individual condition of common shrews (Sorex araneus) and prevalence and species richness of associated helminths, responded to spruce plantations in a manner that could indicate community level changes. Shrews colonized plantations in autumn, but never attained abundances comparable to the birch forest types. Shrews in plantations had lower body mass compared to those trapped in the birch forests. We identified 15 helminth species, and detected large differences in prevalence. Only one common helminth had significantly higher prevalence in the birch forest. By analysing prevalence of all species jointly, the highest prevalence was in moist birch forests and lowest in spruce plantations. Species richness estimates were lower in plantations, however not statistically significant. Although prevalence and species richness of helminths in common shrews were affected by tree species conversion, we judge the responses to be too weak and uncertain and the sampling and analysis too laborious to make shrew endoparasites suitable for monitoring purposes. However, monitoring abundance of common shrews is likely an efficient way of detecting changes in the forest floor fauna resulting from modern forestry practices.


Helminths Indicator Picea abies Prevalence Species richness Sorex araneus 



Funding for the study was provided by the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Norwegian Research Council and the University of Tromsø. The sponsors were only responsible for funding of the study. We thank two anonymous reviewers for valuable comments on the manuscript.


  1. Bates D, Maechler M (2007) Lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes.
  2. Bauerova Z (1984) The food eaten by Sorex araneus and Sorex minutus in a spruce monoculture. Folia Zool 33:125–132Google Scholar
  3. Boulinier T, Ives AR, Danchin E (1996) Measuring aggregation of parasites at different host population levels. Parasitology 112:581–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boulinier T, Nichols JD, Sauer JR, Hines JE, Pollock KH (1998) Estimating species richness: the importance of heterogeneity in species detectability. Ecology 79:1018–1028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Butterfield J, Coulson JC, Wanless S (1981) Studies on the distribution food breeding biology and relative abundance of the pygmy and common shrews (Sorex minutus and Sorex araneus) in upland areas of northern England. J Zool 195:169–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cattadori IM, Haukisalmi V, Henttonen H, Hudson PJ (2006) Transmission ecology and the structure of parasite communities in small mammals. In: Morand S, Krasnov BR, Poulin R (eds) Micromammals and macroparasites: from evolutionary ecology to management. Springer, Tokyo, pp 349–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ehrich D, Yoccoz NG, Ims RA (2009) Multi-annual density fluctuations and habitat size enhance genetic variability in two northern voles. Oikos 118:1441–1452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Einarsen G, Hausner VH, Yoccoz NG, Ims RA (2008) Predation on artificial ground nests in birch forests fragmented by spruce plantations. Ecoscience 15:141–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Frafjord K (2008) Can environmental factors explain size variation in the common shrew (Sorex araneus)? Mamm Biol 73:415–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Georgiev BB, Bray RA, Littlewood DT (2006) Cestodes of small mammals: taxonomy and life cycles. In: Morand S, Krasnov BR, Poulin R (eds) Micromammals and macroparasites from evolutionary ecology to management. Springer, Tokyo, pp 29–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hågvar S (1989) Effects of artificial acidification on soil fauna and decomposition rate. Medd Nor Inst Skogforsk 42:77–82Google Scholar
  12. Hämet-Athi L, Ahti T (1969) The homologies of the Fennoscandian mountain and coastal birch forest in Eurasia and North America. Vegetatio 19:208–219Google Scholar
  13. Hanski I (1984) Food-consumption assimilation and metabolic-rate in 6 species of shrew (Sorex and Neomys). Ann Zool Fenn 21:157–165Google Scholar
  14. Hanski I, Pankakoski E (1989) Population biology of Eurasian shrews—introduction. Ann Zool Fenn 26:335–338Google Scholar
  15. Hansson L, Löfqvist J, Nilsson A (1978) Population fluctuations in insectivores and small rodents in northernmost fennoscandia Z Saugetierkunde. Int J Mamm Biol 43:75–92Google Scholar
  16. Harrell FE (2001) Regression modelling strategies with application to linear models logistic regression and survival analysis. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Haukisalmi V (1989) Intestinal helminth communities of Sorex shrews in Finland. Ann Zool Fenn 26:401–409Google Scholar
  18. Haukisalmi V, Henttonen H (1990) The impact of climatic factors and host density on the long-term population-dynamics of vole helminths. Oecologia 83:309–315Google Scholar
  19. Haukisalmi V, Henttonen H (1998) Analysing interspecific associations in parasites: alternative methods and effects of sampling heterogeneity. Oeceologica 116:565–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Haukisalmi V, Henttonen H, Mikkonen T (1994) Parasitism by gastrointestinal helminths in the shrews Sorex araneus and S. caecutiens. In: Merritt JF, Kirkland GL, Rose RK (eds) Advances in the biology of shrews. Special publication of the Carnegie museum of natural history 18, pp 15–19Google Scholar
  21. Hausner VH (2001) Scenarios for managing biodiversity in coastal birch forests fragmented by spruce plantations. PhD thesis, Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, University of TromsøGoogle Scholar
  22. Hausner VH, Yoccoz NG, Strann KB, Ims RA (2002) Changes in bird communities by planting non-native spruce in coastal birch forest of northern Norway. Ecoscience 9:470–481Google Scholar
  23. Hausner VH, Yoccoz NG, Ims RA (2003) Selecting indicator traits for monitoring land use impacts: birds in northern coastal birch forests. Ecol Appl 13:999–1012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hechinger RF, Lafferty KD, Huspeni TC, Brooks AJ, Kuris AM (2007) Can parasites be indicators of free-living diversity? Relationships between species richness and the abundance of larval trematodes and of local benthos and fishes. Oecologia 151:82–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Heink U, Kowatik I (2010) What are indicators? On the definition of indicators in ecology and environmental planning. Ecol Indic 10:584–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Henttonen H, Haukisalmi V, Kaikusalo A, Korpimäki E, Norrdahl K, Skaren UAP (1989) Long-term population-dynamics of the common shrew Sorex araneus in Finland. Ann Zool Fenn 26:349–355Google Scholar
  27. Hosmer DW, Hosmer T, Le Cessie S, Lemeshow S (1997) A comparison of goodness-of-fit tests for the logistic regression model. Stat Med 16:965–980PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hudson PJ, Cattadori M, Boag B, Dobson AP (2006a) Climate disruption and parasite-host dynamics: patterns and processes associated with warming and the frequency of extreme climatic events. J Helminthol 80:175–182PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hudson PJ, Dobson AP, Lafferty KD (2006b) Is a healthy ecosystem one that is rich in parasites? Trends Ecol Evol 21:381–385PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ivanter EV, Makarov AM (1994) The spatial structure of shrew populations (Sorex insectivora) and its correlation with the feed biomass in communities. Zool Zhurnal 73:124–138Google Scholar
  31. Jakob EM, Marshall SD, Uetz GW (1996) Estimating fitness: a comparison of body condition indices. Oikos 77:61–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Klok CDR, Roos AM (1998) Effect of habitat size and quality on equilibrium density and extinction time of Sorex araneus populations. J Anim Ecol 67:195–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lafferty KD (1997) Environmental parasitology: what can parasites tell us about human impacts on the environment? Parasit Today 13:251–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lambin X, Petty SJ, MacKinnon JL (2000) Cyclic dynamics in field vole populations and generalist predation. J Anim Ecol 69:106–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Le Cessie S, Van Houwelingen JC (1994) Logistic-regression for correlated binary data. Appl Stat J R Stat Soc Ser C 43:95–108Google Scholar
  36. Manning T, Edge WD, Wolff JO (1995) Evaluating population-size estimators—an empirical-approach. J Mamm 76:1149–1158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mouritsen KN, Poulin R (2005) Parasites boosts biodiversity and changes animal community structure by trait-mediated indirect effects. Oikos 108:344–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Otis DL, Burnham KP, White GC, Anderson DR (1978) Statistical-inference from capture data on closed animal populations. Wildl Monogr 62:7–135Google Scholar
  39. Pankakoski E (1989) Variation in the tooth wear of the shrews Sorex-araneus and S. minutes. Ann Zool Fenn 26:445–457Google Scholar
  40. Pedersen ÅØ, Yoccoz NG, Ims RA (2009) Spatial and temporal patterns of artificial nest predation in mountain birch forests fragmented by spruce plantations. Eur J Wildl Res 55:371–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pedersen ÅØ, Ims RA, Yoccoz NG, Hausner VH, Juell KH (2010a) Scale-dependent responses of predators and their prey to spruce plantations in subarctic birch forests in winter. Ecoscience 17(2):123–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pedersen ÅØ, Yoccoz NG, Ims RA, Sigurdsen T (2010b) Effects of non-native spruce plantations on small mammal communities in subarctic birch forest ecology. For Ecol Manage 260:331–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pollock KH (1982) A capture-recapture design robust to unequal probability of capture. J Wildl Manage 46:752–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rexstad E, Burnham K (2000) User’s guide for interactive program CAPTURE. Institute of Arctic Biology, Department of Biology and Wildlife University of Alaska FairbanksGoogle Scholar
  45. Rolstad J (1991) Consequences of forest fragmentation for the dynamics of bird populations—conceptual issues and the evidence. Biol J Linn Soc 42:149–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Roots CD, Lewis JW, Churchfield JS (1994) The morphology of hymenolepidid and dilepidid cestodes from common and pygmy shrews (soricidae) in southeast England. J Helminthol 68:247–254PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Saetre P (1999) Spatial patterns of ground vegetation soil microbial biomass and activity in a mixed spruce-birch stand. Ecography 22:183–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Saetre P, Saetre LS, Brandtberg PO, Lundkvist H, Bengtsson J (1997) Ground vegetation composition and heterogeneity in pure Norway spruce and mixed Norway spruce—birch stands. Can J For 27:2034–2042Google Scholar
  49. Sasal P, Mouillot D, Fichez R, Chifflet S, Kulbicki M (2007) The use of fish parasites as biological indicators of anthropogenic influences in coral-reef lagoons: a case study of Apogonidae parasites in New-Caledonia. Marine Pollut Bull 54:1697–1706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shaw DJ, Dobson AP (1995) Patterns of macroparasite abundance and aggregation in wildlife populations: a quantitative review. Parasitology 111:S111–S133PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sheftel BI, Hanski I (2002) Species richness relative abundances and habitat use in local assemblages of Sorex shrews in Eurasian boreal forests. Acta Theriol 47:69–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Simila M, Kouki J, Monkkonen M, Sippola AL, Huhta E (2006) Co-variation and indicators of species diversity: can richness of forest-dwelling species be predicted in northern boreal forests? Ecol Indic 6:686–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sures B (2004) Environmental parasitology: relevancy of parasites in monitoring environmental pollution. Trends Parasit 20:170–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. van Strien AJ, van Duuren L, Foppen RPB, Soldaat LL (2009) A typology of indicators of biodiversity change as a tool to make better indicators. Ecol Indic 9:1041–1048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Vaucher C (1971) Les cestodes parasites des Soricidae d’Europe Etude anatomique revision taxonomique et biologie. Revue Suisse de Zool 78:1–113Google Scholar
  56. Vaucher C, Durette-Desette MC (1973) Nèmatodes Hèligmosomes parasites d’Insectivores Soricidès de la règion holartique. Ann Parasit 48:133–167Google Scholar
  57. Wells K, Smales LR, Kalko EKV, Pfeiffer M (2007) Impact of rain-forest logging on helminth assemblages in small mammals (Muridae, Tupaiidae) from Borneo. J Tropical Ecol 23:35–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wielgolaski FE (ed) (2001) Nordic mountain birch ecosystems. United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization, Parthenon Publishing Group Inc., New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  59. Williams HH, Mackenzie K (2003) Marine parasites as pollution indicators: an update. Parasitology 126:S27–S41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wrigley RE, Dubois JE, Copland HWR (1979) Habitat abundance and distribution of 6 species of shrews in Manitoba. J Mamm 60:505–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Yoccoz NG, Ims RA (2004) Spatial population dynamics of small mammals: some methodological and practical issues. Anim Biodivers Conserv 27:427–435Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Therese Sigurdsen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Åshild Ø. Pedersen
    • 1
  • Nigel G. Yoccoz
    • 1
  • Voitto Haukisalmi
    • 3
  • Rolf A. Ims
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Arctic and Marine BiologyUniversity of TromsøTromsøNorway
  2. 2.TromsøNorway
  3. 3.Finnish Forest Research InstituteVantaa Research UnitVantaaFinland

Personalised recommendations