biology Article Drivers of the Ectoparasite Community and Co-Infection Patterns in Rural and Urban Burrowing Owls Ángeles Sáez-Ventura 1 , Antonio J. López-Montoya 2 , Álvaro Luna 3,4 , Pedro Romero-Vidal 3,5 , Antonio Palma 3 , José L. Tella 3 , Martina Carrete 5 , Gracia M. Liébanas 1 and Jesús M. Pérez 1,6, * 1 Department of Animal and Plant Biology and Ecology, Jaén University, Campus Las Lagunillas, s.n., 23071 Jaén, Spain; asaezvent@gmail.com (Á.S.-V.); gtorres@ujaen.es (G.M.L.) 2 Department of Statistics and Operational Research, Jaén University, Campus Las Lagunillas, s.n., 23071 Jaén, Spain; amontoya@ujaen.es 3 Estación Biológica de Doñana (CSIC), Av. Américo Vespucio, s.n., 41092 Sevilla, Spain; alvaro.luna@universidadeuropea.es (Á.L.); promvid1@upo.es (P.R.-V.); palmag.antonio@ebd.csic.es (A.P.); tella@ebd.csic.es (J.L.T.) 4 Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Universidad Europea de Madrid, 28670 Madrid, Spain 5 Department of Physical, Chemical and Natural Systems, Pablo Olavide University, Ctra. de Utrera, km 1, 41013 Sevilla, Spain; mcarrete@upo.es 6 Wildlife Ecology & Health Group (WE&H), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, 08193 Barcelona, Spain * Correspondence: jperez@ujaen.es; Tel.: +34-953-212520 Simple Summary: We analyzed the ectoparasite community of a monomorphic and non-social bird, the burrowing owl, Athene cunicularia, breeding in rural and urban habitats. Such community Citation: Sáez-Ventura, Á.; was composed by two lice, one mite and one flea species. Rural individuals had more fleas and López-Montoya, A.J.; Luna, Á.; less mites than urban ones. Adult birds harbored less ectoparasites than young ones and females Romero-Vidal, P.; Palma, A.; Tella, harbored more lice than males. The presence of lice was positively related to the presence of fleas. J.L.; Carrete, M.; Liébanas, G.M.; On the contrary, the presence of mites was negatively related to the presence of fleas and lice. The Pérez, J.M. Drivers of the study of parasite communities in urban and rural populations of the same species can shed light Ectoparasite Community and on how urban stressor factors impact the physiology of wildlife inhabiting cities and, therefore, the Co-Infection Patterns in Rural and host-parasite relationships. Urban Burrowing Owls. Biology 2022, 11, 1141. https://doi.org/10.3390/ Abstract: Urbanization creates new ecological conditions that can affect biodiversity at all levels, biology11081141 including the diversity and prevalence of parasites of species that may occupy these environments. Academic Editors: Jukka Finne and However, few studies have compared bird–ectoparasite interactions between urban and rural indi- Caitlin Gabor viduals. Here, we analyze the ectoparasite community and co-infection patterns of urban and rural Received: 29 June 2022 burrowing owls, Athene cunicularia, to assess the influence of host traits (i.e., sex, age, and weight), Accepted: 26 July 2022 and environmental factors (i.e., number of conspecifics per nest, habitat type and aridity) on its Published: 29 July 2022 composition. Ectoparasites of burrowing owls included two lice, one flea, and one mite. The overall prevalence for mites, lice and fleas was 1.75%, 8.76% and 3.50%, respectively. A clear pattern of Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral co-infection was detected between mites and fleas and, to less extent, between mites and lice. Adult with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affil- owls harbored fewer ectoparasites than nestlings, and adult females harbored more lice than males. iations. Our results also show that mite and flea numbers were higher when more conspecifics cohabited the same burrow, while lice showed the opposite pattern. Rural individuals showed higher flea parasitism and lower mite parasitism than urban birds. Moreover, mite numbers were negatively correlated with aridity and host weight. Although the ectoparasitic load of burrowing owls appears Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. to be influenced by individual age, sex, number of conspecifics per nest, and habitat characteristics, Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. the pattern of co-infection found among ectoparasites could also be mediated by unexplored factors This article is an open access article such as host immune response, which deserves further research. distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Keywords: Athene cunicularia; co-infection; ectoparasites; fleas; lice; mites; urban ecology Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). Biology 2022, 11, 1141. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology11081141 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/biology Biology 2022, 11, 1141 2 of 15 1. Introduction Emerging infectious diseases have motivated substantial advances in understanding the ecology of parasite communities [1,2]. Several studies show that parasite-host interac- tions can vary among species, landscapes, and habitats [3,4], depending on the extent and complexity of their distributions, and host features: e.g., body size, age, behavior [5], and environmental characteristics: e.g., conspecific density, climate [6–8]. Moreover, seasonal movements and dispersal of host species across the landscape may also contribute to changing their parasite communities, also increasing the chances of transmission to other species [9]. Because host and parasite diversities are strongly connected, changes in the landscape are also likely to modify parasite diversity, with implications for wildlife but also human health [10,11]. Individuals may harbor parasites belonging to different zoological taxa (“island ecosys- tems” [2,12]). Although direct interactions among parasites are important in determining which combination of parasites will be present in an individual, e.g., mechanical facilita- tion [13], interference competition [14], indirect interactions (i.e., those mediated by host defenses [4]) are critical in explaining intracommunity variability. Associations between parasites may be similarly influenced by host traits such as behavior, ecology, exposure history, and pathologies [15], which may influence the transmission [16,17], distribution patterns [18], and the load patterns of parasites [19]. Moreover, morbidity induced by one parasite can affect host exposure to others, even if they are antagonistic [20], and mortality induced by one parasite could also reduce available hosts for other parasite species [21]. Urbanization constitutes a primary driver of habitat loss and fragmentation, affecting the spatial distribution of species and inducing deep ecological changes that affect many components of biodiversity [22–24]. Although animal communities are often simplified and homogenized in cities [25], these novel environments can also host a large number of species, including endangered ones [26–28], which may flourish and reach higher densities than in natural areas [27,29,30]. However, changes in conspecific density, resource avail- ability and predation pressure commonly found in urban ecosystems [27,31–33] can have both positive and negative effects on the breeding performance and survival prospects of individuals [34–36]. Urbanization may also affect the parasite-host interactions by provid- ing some effective resources to deal with ectoparasites: e.g., using cigarette butts within the nest material reduce the ectoparasite load in birds [37], or by increasing stress [38]: e.g., heavy metals [39], noise [40], human disturbance [41], but see [35], which can affect the body condition and health status of the individuals [42]. Thus, urban individuals can differ in their propensity to be parasitized compared to their rural counterparts. Although our knowledge of changes in ecological and evolutionary processes as- sociated with urban life has increased during recent years, few studies have explored differences in parasite-host interactions between conspecifics living in rural and urban habitats [43,44]. Here, we investigate the ectoparasite community of burrowing owls Athene cunicularia, a non-social, monogamous species [45] studied intensively as a model for understanding the drivers and consequences of urban invasion. The selection of this cavity-nester raptor is relevant as nesting cavities provide a stable microclimatic context for the development of ectoparasites that feed on avian hosts [46]. Moreover, because burrowing owls may share their burrows with mammals over time (e.g., armadillos Dasy- podidae, skunks Conepatus sp., or vizcachas Lagostomus maximus [47]), they are likely to host mammalian ectoparasites and, thus, a wider variety of ectoparasites than other avian species. Previous research conducted in the same owl population has shown that densities are notably higher in the city [27], urban individuals being more philopatric and productive than rural ones [27,35,48]. Rural owls breed in natural grasslands and pastures dedicated to cattle and crops, where human presence is rare and restricted to some scattered roads. Urban owls, conversely, breed in private gardens, public parks, free spaces plots among houses, roundabouts, and large avenues, in continuous contact with people and traffic [35]. The diet of the burrowing owl mainly comprises arthropods and small mammals, but also small birds, reptiles, and amphibians [49,50], without differences among urban and Biology 2022, 11, 1141 3 of 15 rural breeding territories [51]. During the breeding season, prey are usually consumed inside or at the entrance of the burrows, which are used not only for breeding but also as a refuge [52], increasing the likelihood of contact between owls, prey and potential parasites. Ectoparasite prevalence and load would be higher in nestlings, which need to mature the immune response, particularly, complement activation [53], than in adults, and in nests with more conspecifics, which are more frequent in urban than rural areas [54]. Besides, owls in nests located in more arid areas would host less ectoparasites due to the negative influence of aridity on arthropod survival [55,56]. Testosterone has been linked to increased parasite susceptibility in different vertebrate groups, whereas estrogen is often associated with increased resistance against infection [56,57], so it is expected that males to harbor more ectoparasites than females. As nutritional resources can govern both growth and resistance to ectoparasites [58,59], a negative relation between owl body mass and ectoparasite load can be expected. Finally, differences in ectoparasite load between urban and rural individuals associated with differences in conspecific density but also as a consequence of the relative absence of other wild animals using burrows in cities can also be expected. Specifically, we analyzed (i) the influence of individual traits (e.g., sex, age, body mass), and environmental conditions (e.g., number of conspecifics per burrow, habitat type, and the aridity of the area) on ectoparasite prevalence, and (ii) the patterns of ectoparasites co-infection. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Study Area and Species Our study area encompasses 5400 km2 , including the urban area of Bahia Blanca and its surrounding rural expanses (province of Buenos Aires, Argentina) (Figure 1). There, we monitored the breeding populations of burrowing owls from 2006 to 2020 [36]. Urban nests were located in private and public gardens, vacant lots among houses, curbs of the streets, roundabouts, and large avenues, in contact with the intense daily activity derived from cities. Rural nests, on the contrary, were located in large extensions of natural or semi-natural grasslands, with very low human presence. It is worth noting that the city is immediately surrounded by large areas of pastures, and there is no obstacle precluding the movement of individuals between urban and rural areas. Moreover, as these owls are able to excavate their own burrows, their distribution is not constrained by the availability of nesting structures [35]. Studies focused on this host species have reported more than 60 parasite species across its distribution range, including one virus, seven protists, seven trematodes, six nematodes, one acanthocephalan, 14 acari (including soft ticks, Argasidae, and mites), three hippoboscid diptera, one carnid fly, 25 fleas and two lice (Supplementary Material). 2.2. Sample Collection During the breeding periods (from November to early February) of 2016–2017 and 2017–2018, we captured 482 urban and 387 rural burrowing owls occupying 424 nests (226 urban and 198 rural nests; Figure 1) using bow nets and ribbon carpets. Birds were marked with an individually numbered plastic color ring readable at distance, aged as chick (including fledgling) or adult, inspected for ectoparasites, measured (wing length, in mm), and weighed (in g) before releasing them. The number of individuals occupying each nest, i.e., breeders, nestlings, and individuals delaying dispersal [48], was obtained by intense monitoring throughout the breeding season [36,45]. The sex of adults was assigned by plumage pattern coloration [60] or, when needed for adults and nestlings, by molecular procedures using blood samples [42]. Biology 2022,11, Biology2022, 11,1141 x 44 of of 15 16 Figure1.1.Location Figure Locationofofthe thestudy studyarea. area.Grey Greyand andwhite whitedots dotsshow showthe thelocation locationof ofrural ruraland andurban urbannests nests sampled, respectively. Paved (grey) and unpaved (white) roads are also shown. sampled, respectively. Paved (grey) and unpaved (white) roads are also shown. 2.2. Sample Collection Ectoparasites were searched for on all parts of the owl’s body by two people during a 5 min inspection, During pullingperiods the breeding the feathers (fromapart to detect November individuals to early February) among them and and of 2016–2017 on the skin, with special emphasis on the wings, head, and trunk. 2017–2018, we captured 482 urban and 387 rural burrowing owls occupying 424 nests (226 All ectoparasites found were urban removed, counted, and 198 rural nests;and fixed Figure 1)in Eppendorf using bow nets tubes filled with and ribbon 97%Birds carpets. ethanol wereformarked latter identification in the lab. Ectoparasites were treated and mounted with an individually numbered plastic color ring readable at distance, aged as chick (in-in Canada balsam [61] to be identified cluding based on fledgling) published or adult, descriptions: inspected lice [62–65]; for ectoparasites, fleas [66–68]; measured (wing mites: [69]. length, in mm), and weighed (in g) before releasing them. The number of individuals occupying each nest, 2.3. Statistical Analysis i.e., breeders, nestlings, and individuals delaying dispersal [48], was obtained by intense We calculated monitoring the prevalence throughout the breeding of each seasonectoparasite [36,45]. The species sex ofaccording adults was to assigned [70,71] and by estimated plumage pattern coloration [60] or, when needed for adults and nestlings, byand their abundances as the number of each ectoparasite (lice, fleas, mites) molecular removed procedures from a bird using during blood samples5 min.[42].We used generalized linear latent variable models (GLLVMs) to assess were Ectoparasites factors affectingfor searched theonectoparasite all parts of community the owl’s body composition, by two peopleconsidering during patterns a 5 min inspection, pulling the feathers apart to detect individuals among them and in of species co-infection [72,73]. GLLVMs were fitted using the gllvm package [74] on Rthe (version 3.3.2)special skin, with [75], which incorporates emphasis on the latent wings,variables head, and derived trunk. from All the Laplace approxi- ectoparasites found mation method implemented were removed, counted, andthrough fixed in Template Eppendorf Model tubesBuilder [76] 97% filled with to investigate ethanol forspecies latter co-infection identification in the lab. Ectoparasites were treated and mounted in Canada balsamcom- patterns while considering the effects of explanatory variables. GLLVMs [61] bine to beseparate identified species basedGeneralized on publishedLinear Models lice descriptions: (GLMs) with [62–65]; the[66–68]; fleas effect ofmites: explanatory [69]. and latent variables, which account for any residual covariation explained by unknown variables or factors 2.3. Statistical not included in the model [77]. GLLVMs also allowed us to separate Analysis the relative effect of explanatory and latent variables on ectoparasite co-infection patterns (due to Wethe calculated extremely thelow prevalence prevalence of each ectoparasite of Strigiphilus species speotyti, theaccording two lice to [70,71] species and were estimated their abundances as the number of each ectoparasite (lice, grouped into “lice” for this analysis) and to estimate the strength and direction (+/−) of the fleas, and mites) re- moved from a bird during 5 min. We used generalized linear correlations. We fitted a GLLVM considering ectoparasite abundance as dependent variable latent variable models (GLLVMs) toPoisson (zero-inflated assess factors affecting distribution, log the linkectoparasite function). The community model included composition, consider- individual body ing patterns of species co-infection [72,73]. GLLVMs were fitted mass, sex, age (nestling or adult), number of individuals per nest, habitat and aridity using the gllvm package as [74] in R (version 3.3.2) [75], which incorporates latent variables derived from the Laplace Biology 2022, 11, 1141 5 of 15 explanatory variables, plus the interaction between age and sex. Aridity was calculated as the Gaussen aridity index GI = ∑ mean precipitation—(2 × mean temperature) [78]. Data on daily temperature and precipitation for the days employed for samples collection were obtained from a local meteorological station. We also included the year as a fixed factor and, to avoid pseudoreplication, the nest as random term in the model. We checked the strength and sign of correlations between species co-infection using the 95% confidence interval. The mean coefficients for each variable (and their 95% confidence intervals) were plotted to determine which coefficients corresponding to the explanatory variables were statistically significant. The goodness of fit of the model was checked graphically using Dunn–Smyth residuals [79] and a normal-quantile plot of the residuals using the summary function of the gllvm package. 3. Results 3.1. Ectoparasite Community We collected four ectoparasite species in our burrowing owl populations: one mite belonging to the family Laelapidae (order Mesostigmata) (n = 39), two chewing lice (Strigiphilus speotyti Ischnocera: Philopteridae (n = 2), and Colpocephalum pectinatum Am- blycera: Menoponidae) (n = 224), and one flea (Polygenis platensis Rhopalopsyllidae) (n = 51). With the samples obtained, we were unable to identify the mite to species level (for more details, see Supplementary Material). Only 106 of the birds sampled (12.2%) harbored any ectoparasite: 76 (8.76%) had lice (8.64% C. pectinatum, 0.23% S. speotyti, and 0.12% had both species), 30 (3.50%) had fleas, and 15 (1.73%) were parasitized by mites. Moreover, 4.7% of owls simultaneously had lice and fleas, 5.6% were parasitized by lice and mites, 3.7% by fleas and mites, and 0.9% had all three parasite types. No bird harbored all the four ectoparasites simultaneously (Table 1). Table 1. Prevalence and abundance of ectoparasites found in rural and urban burrowing owls Athene cunicularia in Bahía Blanca (Argentina). SD: standard deviation; SU: sex undetermined. Burrowing Owls Mites Lice Fleas n Prevalance Mean ± SD Range Prevalence Mean ± SD Range Prevalence Mean ± SD Range Global 869 1.75% 2.60 ± 4.31 1–18 8.76% 3.01 ± 3.12 1–17 3.50% 1.70 ± 1.02 1–5 Males 237 0.70% 4.00 ± 6.87 1–18 4.21% 3.69 ± 4.01 1–17 1.52% 1.77 ± 1.24 1–5 Females 301 1.05% 1.67 ± 0.71 1–3 4.56% 2.38 ± 1.82 1–8 1.99% 1.65 ± 0.86 1–3 SU 331 1.61% 1.00 ± 0.00 1–1 4.94% 2.60 ± 2.32 1–9 2.30% 1.95 ± 1.13 1–5 Chicks 380 1.52% 2.69 ± 4.63 1–8 5.02% 3.37 ± 3.59 1–17 2.22% 1.95 ± 1.13 1–5 Adults 489 0.23% 2.00 ± 1.41 1–3 3.74% 2.53 ± 2.32 1–9 1.29% 1.27 ± 0.65 1–3 Rural 387 0.35% 1.67 ± 1.15 1–3 4.09% 3.43 ± 3.97 1–17 2.69% 1.65 ± 1.07 1–5 Urban 482 1.40% 2.83 ± 4.80 1–18 4.67% 2.65 ± 2.11 1–8 0.82% 1.86 ± 0.90 1–3 2016–2017 413 3.39% 2.71 ± 4.44 1–18 9.20% 3.26 ± 3.87 1–17 3.87% 1.81 ± 1.16 1–5 2017–2018 456 2.19% 1.00 ± 0.00 1–1 7.89% 2.58 ± 1.87 1–8 2.41% 1.72 ± 0.90 1–3 We found a lower prevalence of mites, fleas and lice in 2017–2018 than in 2016–2017. Adult owls had fewer mites, lice, and fleas than nestlings, and adult females harbored more mites than males. Individuals occupying burrows in rural areas had more fleas and fewer mites than those inhabiting urban areas. Nevertheless, habitat did not influence the number of lice. The number of mites and fleas was correlated positively with the number of owls in the family unit, but lice showed the opposite pattern. The number of mites was negatively related to aridity (GI), while the number of fleas increased along this gradient. Body mass did not influence the lice number, but affected negatively both fleas and mites abundance (Figure 2; Table 2). Biology 2022, 11,2022, Biology x 11, 1141 6 of715of 16 Figure Figure 2. Influence 2. Influence of individual of individual traits(sex, traits (sex,age, age,body body mass), mass), and andenvironmental environmental conditions (number conditions (number of conspecifics of conspecifics per burrow, per burrow, habitat habitat type, type, andandthethe aridity aridity of of thethe area) area) ononthethe abundanceofofmites, abundance mites,fleas fleasinand and lice thelice in the burrowing burrowing owls Athene owls Athene cunicularia. cunicularia. Estimated Estimated coefficients coefficients (and(and 95%95% confidence confidence inter- vals)intervals) of the covariates for the of the covariates forthree ectoparasite the three ectoparasitegroups. groups.95% 95% confidence intervals confidence intervals overlapping overlapping 0 0 (dashed vertical (dashed line) vertical indicate line) indicatea non-significant a non-significant coefficient. coefficient. 3.2. Co-Infection Pattern The correlated response model (CRM) including explanatory variables shows a sig- nificant positive correlation between lice and fleas and a negative correlation between mites and fleas and mites and lice (Figure 3A). However, in the CRM considering latent variables, only positive correlation between lice and fleas remains significant (Figure 3B). Biology 2022, 11, 1141 7 of 15 Table 2. Results of the estimated coefficients of the gllvm model. Parasite Component Estimate Std. Err. z Value p-Value Age −0.9389 0.0879 −10.682 <2 × 10−16 *** Sex −0.4041 0.0745 −5.426 5.76 × 10−8 *** Habitat 0.3051 0.1598 1.909 0.0562 * Lice Nind/nest −0.3988 0.0022 −179.647 <2 × 10−16 *** Aridity 0.1138 0.1752 0.650 0.51577 Body mass 0.0004 0.0007 0.603 0.54620 Age:Sex 0.6932 0.1091 6.356 2.07 × 10−10 *** Age −1.1969 0.0683 −17.514 <2 × 10−16 *** Sex −0.0727 0.0125 −5.818 5.94 × 10−9 *** Habitat 3.4717 0.0805 43.115 <2 × 10−16 *** Fleas Nind/nest 0.3418 0.0469 7.287 3.17 × 10−13 *** Aridity 0.9466 0.1409 6.718 1.84 × 10−11 *** Body mass −0.0088 0.0008 −11.187 <2 × 10−16 *** Age:Sex −0.2483 0.0045 −54.809 <2 × 10−16 *** Age −2.6764 0.1419 −18.862 <2 × 10−16 *** Sex 1.8086 0.1631 11.090 <2 × 10−16 *** Habitat −1.2081 0.0805 −15.003 <2 × 10−16 *** Mites Nind/nest 0.1976 0.0761 2.593 0.00951 ** Aridity −0.8150 0.0948 −8.600 <2 × 10−16 *** Body mass −0.0103 0.0010 −9.963 <2 × 10−16 *** Age:Sex −0.6797 0.0830 −8.190 2.62 × 10−16 *** *** p-value < 0.001; ** p-value < 0.01; * p-value < 0.05. 3.2. Co-Infection Pattern The correlated response model (CRM) including explanatory variables shows a signifi- Biology 2022, 11, x 8 of 16 cant positive correlation between lice and fleas and a negative correlation between mites and fleas and mites and lice (Figure 3A). However, in the CRM considering latent variables, only positive correlation between lice and fleas remains significant (Figure 3B). Figure 3. Correlations between abundance of ectoparasites due to explanatory (A) and latent Figurevariables (B) based onbetween 3. Correlations the CRM.abundance Significant of correlations (i.e., due ectoparasites 95% to confidence interval explanatory (A) not andover- latent (B) lapping zero) are represented by solid colours, while transparent ones represent non-significant variables based on the CRM. Significant correlations (i.e., 95% confidence interval not overlapping correlations. zero) The strength are represented of correlations by solid is represented colours, while transparentby the ones size of the circles. represent non-significant correlations. The strength of correlations is represented by the size of the circles. 4. Discussion 4.1. Ectoparasite Community and Co-Infection Pattern In recent years, many studies have contributed to a better understanding of the ecto- Biology 2022, 11, 1141 8 of 15 4. Discussion 4.1. Ectoparasite Community and Co-Infection Pattern In recent years, many studies have contributed to a better understanding of the ec- toparasites host by burrowing owls through their distribution range. In this study, using a notably larger sample size than in the rest of the studies [80,81], we found that approx- imately 12% of the individuals examined in two consecutive breeding seasons harbor at least one of four ectoparasite species. The flea species detected, Polygenis platensis, has been previously collected from mammals and birds from South American countries, including burrowing owls in Argentina [68,82]. This species is a common parasite of rodents and insectivorous mammals, but also infests carnivores (Procyonidae and Canidae) and hu- mans [67,83]. The presence of this flea is relevant because Siphonaptera insects are more associated with mammals than birds, and cases of fleas shared between mammals and raptors are not common [83]. In our case, the presence of P. platensis can be explained by its presence in owl’s preys and by the atypical habit of owls to use subterranean holes for nest- ing and resting, sometimes breeding in burrows previously used by mammals [36,47,48], which provides a context for further cross-species parasitization. Inside the burrows, the temperature is more constant and the relative humidity is much higher than outside [84]. This fact, together with the accumulation of decaying material (burrowing owls decorate the entrance of their burrows with different organic materials [85]) may favor the survival of arthropods in general, and ectoparasites in particular, so that fleas can be even more abundant and prevalent in the burrows than in the individuals themselves [81]. As for the lice recorded, the same species have been identified in burrowing owls in their Northern and Southern range: Strigiphilus speotyti has been found in individuals from the USA, Argentina, Chile and Brazil, while Colpocephalum pectinatum appeared in studies performed in the USA, Argentina, Brazil and Mexico (see details in the Supplementary Material). Colpochepalum species have been detected in more than ten orders of birds, including owls [62,86], but Strigiphilus are exclusive to the order Strigiformes [64,86,87]. Fleas, can be carried by the rodents preyed on by owls, which are often left at the entrance or inside the nest to feed nestlings. Furthermore, burrowing owls not only serve as potential sources of food, but can also be used as phoretic hosts, giving protection to such arthropods from predators, providing thermoregulatory advantages, and facilitating access to habitat for larvae development within the nest substrate [59]. Finally, mites from the Laelapidae family found in our burrowing owl populations include several species both free-living and others that live in association with a wide variety of vertebrates and invertebrates [88,89], so the presence of an unidentified species in our sampled birds is not surprising. Further studies are needed to identify the mite species involved and to understand the nature of the mite-owl interaction. Host defense (preening) mediates interspecific competition [90]. Abundances of lice and fleas were positively correlated suggesting that facilitation processes may occur, proba- bly mediated by host immune response [91]. The contrary happens regarding mites and fleas, and mites and lice, and could be explained by both competition between such ectopar- asite groups and/or their negative effect on feather development [92]. On the other hand, the status of host feather molt and its impact on ectoparasite load [92] remain unknown. Some feather mites show a mutualistic relationship with their hosts (e.g., cleaning host feathers [93]. To properly explain the relationship between mites and the other ectoparasite groups it is necessary to identify the mite species involved and its diet as well, to elucidate the true nature of this symbiotic relationship. 4.2. Individual and Environmental Factors Explaining Infection Pattern No lesions nor disease symptoms were detected in the sampled birds. Our results show that adult owls had fewer ectoparasites (mites, fleas, and lice) than nestlings, coinciding with other studies [94–96]. Allopreening (mutual preening), whereby the bill is used to preen the partner’s feathers, is relatively common in burrowing owls [97,98], and more frequent among adults. This behavior, which has social functions such as reducing stress Biology 2022, 11, 1141 9 of 15 levels [99,100], reinforcing pair bonds [101], and reinforcing social hierarchies [102,103], could explain the lower prevalence of ectoparasites in adults compared with nestlings. In addition, the permanence of a large number of nestlings inside the nests (we observed nests with up to 5–7 fledglings) during their first weeks of life may favor parasitization and parasite exchange between siblings. Further research is needed to understand whether these results may be also due to the lower immunocompetence of nestlings, or to the better nutritional state of adults, or if it is related to other environment or behavioral factors not considered here [42]. Male and female burrowing owls have similar ectoparasite burden, regarding fleas and lice, which is common in monomorphic birds [104], but females harbored more mites (Figure 2). During incubation and the first weeks of chick rearing, females spend more time inside the nest or at its entrance, being potentially more exposed to parasites. As before, the differences observed in mite load may be also due to differences in the immune response [105,106], which could differ not only among individuals but also between males and females, mainly during the breeding period [107]. Body mass is a reliable indicator of offspring survival in birds and mammals [108]. It is assumed that heavy birds are able to produce an immune response while maintaining a relatively large uropygial gland [106]. In Athene cunicularia, the uropygial gland accounts for ca. 9% of its weight [109]. This could explain the negative relationship between flea and mite burden and owl body mass. Amblyceran lice (as is the case of C. pectinatum) occur in contact with and fed in host skin, even obtaining blood. So, it is expected that amblyceran lice abundance and richness have evolved in response to interaction with the immune system of the host [110]. In our case, owl body mass did not affect the number of lice (C. pectinatum). This suggests that the immune response to this amblyceran louse could be very mild or moderate. Few studies have compared the ectoparasite burden of urban and rural conspecifics. For instance, Ancillotto et al., 2018 [111] have found a positive relationship between the degree of urbanization and the prevalence and abundance of chewing lice and mites in exotic parakeets in Italy. Wemer et al., 2021 [38] found fewer ectoparasites, lower haemolysis and lower body mass index in nestling Eurasian kestrels (Falco tinnunculus) from more urbanized areas compared to those inhabiting less urbanized areas. In our study, we found differences in the abundance of fleas and mites among owls nesting in urban and rural areas. Although urban and rural owls include rodents in their diet in similar proportions [58,112], the presence of mammals that may also breed or shelter in their burrows may explain why rural owls acquire more fleas than urban ones. Differences in burrow microclimate can also influence ectoparasite distribution [113]. Flea numbers increased with increasing GI values (that means high rainfall values and/or low temperature), since such conditions favor arthropod survival [51]. The im- mature stages of fleas developing in host burrows are sensitive to air temperature and humidity, with effects on both development and survival times [114]. Larval survival may be compromised under low humidity conditions (e.g., 40–50%) [115]. On the other hand, increasing humidity of great tit (Parus major) cavity-nests as a result of flea infestations has been reported [116]. 5. Conclusions Today, as global human population continues to increase and urbanize, scientists, conservationists, and politicians agree that understanding the patterns that explain the biodiversity of cities is a priority for urban planning and nature conservation [117]. Addi- tionally, there is a growing concern towards the interaction between wildlife diseases and urban habitats, due to their implications for wildlife conservation and public health. With this study, integrated in a long-term monitoring program of burrowing owls, we contribute to understanding the infestation patterns of a raptor species inhabiting both rural and urban areas, showing how individual and environmental factors influence the ectoparasite loads and the co-infection patterns. Further research is needed to explore the influence Biology 2022, 11, 1141 10 of 15 of the immune system in the effects caused to the host by the presence and activity of the ectoparasites detected. A more detailed exploration, including also more host species, could help to understand the cross-infection between individuals and even between species. Seasonal characterization of reproductive hormones and stress levels of burrowing owls could explain the patterns observed in this study. Equally, extending our study to en- doparasites could offer a complete interpretation of the interactions between parasites and burrowing owls under different scenarios. Finally, the analysis of the potential impact of parasites in the breeding performance and survival prospects of individuals inhabiting the city and rural areas could contribute to acquiring a more complete understanding of the recent colonization of the city by burrowing owls. Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https:// www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/biology11081141/s1, Checklist of parasites reported from Athene cunicularia; Iconography of ectoparasites found in burrowing owls from Bahia Blanca, Argentina. References [118–154] are cited in the supplementary materials. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Á.L. and J.M.P.; methodology, P.R.-V., J.L.T. and M.C.; formal analysis, J.L.T.; investigation, J.L.T., P.R.-V., A.P., Á.L., G.M.L., Á.S.-V., J.M.P. and M.C.; data curation, J.L.T., P.R.-V., A.P., Á.L., A.J.L.-M., J.M.P. and M.C.; writing—original draft prepara- tion, J.M.P.; writing—review and editing, J.L.T., P.R.-V., A.P., G.M.L., Á.S.-V., A.J.L.-M., J.M.P. and M.C.; visualization, P.R.-V., M.C., J.L.T.; supervision, J.L.T. and M.C.; project administration, M.C.; funding acquisition, J.L.T. and M.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: The project was funded by MINECO CGL2012-31888 and CGL2015-71378-P, and Fundación Repsol. A.P. and A.L. were supported by La Caixa-Severo Ochoa International PhD Program (2014 and 2015 respectively). Laboratory activities were partially funded by the PAIDI, Junta de Andalucía (RNM-118, RNM-175 and RNM-182 groups). Institutional Review Board Statement: The fieldwork in Argentina was conducted with authoriza- tion from Argentinean wildlife agencies and with the permission of the owners of houses and farms. Procedures for the capture of individuals and obtaining biological samples from them were approved by the Ethic Committee of the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas CSIC (CEBA-EBD-11-28). Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable. Data Availability Statement: Data are available from the authors upon reasonable request. Acknowledgments: We are indebted to M. Lareschi (CONICET, Argentina) and R.L. Palma (Te Papa Tongarewa Museum, Wellington, New Zealand) for their help in identifying flea and lice specimens. We also thank Sergio Zalba (Universidad Nacional del Sur, Argentina) for his continuous support during our fieldwork. Logistic and technical support for fieldwork were provided by Doñana ICTS-RBD, and by LAST-EBD for acquiring spatial information and elaborate the map. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. References 1. Krasnov, B.R.; Poulin, R.; Mouillot, D. Scale-dependence of phylogenetic signal in ecological traits of ectoparasites. Ecography 2011, 34, 114–122. [CrossRef] 2. Dáttilo, W.; Barrozo-Chávez, N.; Lira-Noriega, A.; Guevara, R.; Villalobos, F.; Santiago-Alarcon, D.; Neves, F.S.; Izzo, T.; Ribeiro, S.P. Species-level drivers of mammalian ectoparasite faunas. J. Anim. Ecol. 2020, 89, 1754–1765. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 3. Karvonen, A.; Bagge, A.M.; Valtonen, E.T. Interspecific and intraspecific variations in the monogenean communities of fish: A question of the study scale? Parasitology 2007, 134, 1237–1242. [CrossRef] 4. Pedersen, A.B.; Fenton, A. Emphasizing the ecology in parasite community ecology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2007, 22, 133–139. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 5. Veiga, J. Determinants of the Host-Parasite Relationship in a System Formed by a Cavity-Nesting Bird and its Ectoparasites in an Arid Ecosystem. Ph.D. Dissertation, Granada University, Granada, Spain, 2020. 6. Poulin, R. Evolutionary Ecology of Parasites: From Individuals to Communities; Chapman and Hall: London, UK, 1998. 7. Morand, S. Wormy world: Comparative tests of theoretical hypotheses on parasite species richness. In Evolutionary Biology of Host-Parasite Relationships: Theory Meets Reality; Poulin, R., Morand, S., Skorping, A., Eds.; Elsevier Science: Amsterdam, The Netherlands; New York, NY, USA, 2000; pp. 63–79. Biology 2022, 11, 1141 11 of 15 8. Poulin, R.; Morand, S. Parasite Biodiversity; Smithsonian Books: Washington, DC, USA, 2004. 9. Freed, L.A.; Medeiros, M.C.; Bodner, G.R. Explosive increase in ectoparasites in Hawaiian forest birds. J. Parasitol. 2008, 94, 1009–1021. [CrossRef] 10. Chakraborty, D.; Reddy, M.; Tiwari, S.; Umapathy, G. Land use change increases wildlife parasite diversity in Anamalai Hills, Western Ghats, India. Sci Rep. 2019, 9, 11975. [CrossRef] 11. Millins, C.; Dickinson, E.R.; Isakovic, P.; Gilbert, L.; Wojciechoswka, A.; Paterson, V.; Tao, F.; Jahn, M.; Kilbride, E.; Birtles, R.; et al. Landscape structure affects the prevalence and distribution of a tick-borne zoonotic pathogen. Parasit. Vectors 2018, 11, 621. [CrossRef] 12. Pérez, J.M.; Meneguz, P.G.; Dematteis, A.; Rossi, L.; Serrano, E. Parasites and conservation biology: The ‘ibex-ecosystem’. Biodivers. Conserv. 2006, 15, 2033–2047. [CrossRef] 13. Bandilla, M.; Valtonen, E.T.; Suomalainen, L.R.; Aphalo, P.J.; Hakalahti, A.T. A link between ectoparasite infection and susceptibil- ityto bacterial disease in rainbow trout. Int. J. Parasitol. 2006, 36, 987–991. [CrossRef] 14. Dobson, R.J.; Barnes, E.H. Interaction between Ostertagia circumcincta and Haemonchus contortus infection in young lambs. Int. J. Parasitol. 1995, 25, 495–501. [CrossRef] 15. Johnson, P.T.; Buller, I.D. Parasite competition hidden by correlated co-infection: Using surveys and experiments to understand parasite interactions. Ecology 2011, 92, 535–541. [CrossRef] 16. Cox, F.E.G. Concomitant infections, parasites and immune responses. Parasitology 2001, 122, S23–S28. [CrossRef] 17. Lello, J.; Norman, R.A.; Boag, B.; Hudson, P.J.; Fenton, A. Pathogen interactions, population cycles, and phase shifts. Am. Nat. 2008, 171, 176–182. [CrossRef] 18. Ng, Y.L.; Hamdan, N.E.S.; Tuen, A.A.; Mohd-Azlan, J.; Chong, Y.L. Co-infections of ectoparasite species in synanthropic rodents of western Sarawak, Malaysian Borneo. Trop. Biomed. 2017, 34, 723–731. 19. Hoffmann, S.; Horak, I.G.; Bennett, N.C.; Lutermann, H. Evidence for interspecific interactions in the ectoparasite infracommunity of a wild mammal. Parasit. Vectors 2016, 9, 58. [CrossRef] 20. Karvonen, A.; Sepälä, O.; Valtonen, E.T. Host immunization shapes interspecies associations in trematode parasites. J. Anim. Ecol. 2009, 78, 945–952. [CrossRef] 21. Jolles, A.E.; Ezenwa, V.O.; Etienne, R.S.; Turner, W.C.; Olff, H. Interactions between macroparasites and microparasites drive infection patterns in free-ranging African buffalo. Ecology 2008, 89, 2239–2250. [CrossRef] 22. McKinney, M.L. Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biol. Conserv. 2006, 127, 247–260. [CrossRef] 23. Grimm, N.B.; Faeth, S.H.; Golubiewski, N.E.; Redman, C.L.; Wu, J.; Bai, X.; Briggs, J.M. Global change and the ecology of cities. Science 2008, 319, 756–760. [CrossRef] 24. Faeth, S.H.; Bang, C.; Saari, S. Urban biodiversity: Patterns and mechanisms. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2011, 1223, 69–81. [CrossRef] 25. Sol, D.; González-Lagos, C.; Moreira, D.; Maspons, J.; Lapiedra, O. Urbanisation tolerance and the loss of avian diversity. Ecol. Lett. 2014, 17, 942–950. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 26. Aronson, M.F.; La Sorte, F.A.; Nilon, C.H.; Katti, M.; Goddard, M.A.; Lepczyk, C.A.; Warren, P.S.; Williams, N.S.G.; Cilliers, S.; Clarkson, B.; et al. A global analysis of the impacts of urbanization on bird and plant diversity reveals key anthropogenic drivers. Proc. Royal Soc. B 2014, 281, 20133330. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 27. Rebolo-Ifrán, N.; Tella, J.L.; Carrete, M. Urban conservation hotspots: Predation release allows the grassland-specialist burrowing owl to perform better in the city. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 3527. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 28. Lepczyk, C.A.; Aronson, M.F.; Evans, K.L.; Goddard, M.A.; Lerman, S.B.; MacIvor, J.S. Biodiversity in the city: Fundamental questions for understanding the ecology of urban green spaces for biodiversity conservation. BioScience 2017, 67, 799–807. [CrossRef] 29. Møller, A.P.; Diaz, M.; Flensted-Jensen, E.; Grim, T.; Ibáñez-Álamo, J.D.; Jokimäki, J.; Mänd, R.; Markó, G.; Tryjanowski, P. High urban population density of birds reflects their timing of urbanization. Oecologia 2012, 170, 867–875. [CrossRef] 30. Thomas, J.P.; Jung, T.S. Life in a northern town: Rural villages in the boreal forest are islands of habitat for an endangered bat. Ecosphere 2019, 10, e02563. [CrossRef] 31. Shwartz, A.; Strubbe, D.; Butler, C.J.; Matthysen, E.; Kark, S. The effect of enemy-release and climate conditions on invasive birds: A regional test using the rose-ringed parakeet (Psittacula krameri) as a case study. Divers. Distrib. 2009, 15, 310–318. [CrossRef] 32. Oro, D.; Genovart, M.; Tavecchia, G.; Fowler, M.S.; Martínez-Abraín, A. Ecological and evolutionary implications of food subsidies from humans. Ecol. Lett. 2013, 16, 1501–1514. [CrossRef] 33. de Araujo, G.M.; Peres, C.A.; Baccaro, F.B.; Guerta, R.S. Urban waste disposal explains the distribution of Black Vultures (Coragyps atratus) in an Amazonian metropolis: Management implications for birdstrikes and urban planning. PeerJ 2018, 6, e5491. [CrossRef] 34. Stracey, C.M.; Robinson, S.K. Are urban habitats ecological traps for a native songbird? Season-long productivity, apparent survival, and site fidelity in urban and rural habitats. J. Avian Biol. 2012, 43, 50–60. [CrossRef] 35. Rebolo-Ifrán, N.; Carrete, M.; Sanz-Aguilar, A.; Rodríguez-Martínez, S.; Cabezas, S.; Marchant, T.A.; Bortolotti, G.R.; Tella, J.L. Links between fear of humans, stress and survival support a non-random distribution of birds among urban and rural habitats. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 13723. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 36. Luna, A.; Palma, A.; Sanz-Aguilar, A.; Tella, J.L.; Carrete, M. Sex, personality and conspecific density influence natal dispersal with lifetime fitness consequences in urban and rural burrowing owls. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0226089. [CrossRef] Biology 2022, 11, 1141 12 of 15 37. Suárez-Rodríguez, M.; López-Rull, I.; Macías Garcia, C. Incorporation of cigarette butts into nests reduces nest ectoparasite load in urban birds: New ingredients for an old recipe? Biol. Lett. 2013, 9, 20120931. [CrossRef] 38. Wemer, L.; Hegemann, A.; Isaksson, C.; Nebel, C.; Kleindorfer, S.; Gamauf, A.; Adrion, M.; Sumasgutner, P. Reduced ectoparasite load, body mass and blood haemolysis in Eurasian kestrels (Falco tinnunculus) along an urban–rural gradient. Sci. Nat. 2021, 108, 42. [CrossRef] 39. Bauerová, P.; Krajzingrová, T.; Těšický, M.; Velová, H.; Hraníček, J.; Musil, S.; Svobodová, J.; Albrecht, T.; Vinkler, M. Longitudi- nally monitored lifetime changes in blood heavy metal concentrations and their health effects in urban birds. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 723, 138002. [CrossRef] 40. Phillips, J.N.; Gentry, K.E.; Luther, D.A.; Derryberry, E.P. Surviving in the city: Higher apparent survival for urban birds but worse condition on noisy territories. Ecosphere 2018, 9, e02440. [CrossRef] 41. Carrete, M.; Tella, J.L. Inter-individual variability in fear of humans and relative brain size of the species are related to contempo- rary urban invasion in birds. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e18859. [CrossRef] 42. Palma, A.; Blas, J.; Tella, J.L.; Cabezas, S.; Marchant, T.A.; Carrete, M. Differences in adrenocortical responses between rural and urban burrowing owls: Poorly-known underlying mechanisms and their implications for conservation. Conserv. Physiol. 2020, 8, coaa054. [CrossRef] 43. Werner, C.S.; Nunn, C.L. Effect of urban habitat use on parasitism in mammals: A meta-analysis. Proc. R. Soc. B 2020, 287, 20200397. [CrossRef] 44. Delgado-V., C.A.; French, K. Parasite–bird interactions in urban areas: Current evidence and emerging questions. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 105, 5–14. [CrossRef] 45. Rodríguez-Martínez, S.; Carrete, M.; Roques, S.; Rebolo-Ifrán, N.; Tella, J.L. High urban breeding densities do not disrupt genetic monogamy in a bird species. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e91314. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 46. Collias, N.E.; Collias, E.C. Nest Building Behavior in Birds; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1984. 47. Machicote, M.; Branch, L.; Villarreal, D. Burrowing owls and burrowing mammals: Are ecosystem engineers interchangeable as facilitators? Oikos 2004, 106, 527–535. [CrossRef] 48. Luna, Á.; Lois, N.A.; Rodríguez-Martinez, S.; Palma, A.; Sanz-Aguilar, A.; Tella, J.L.; Carrete, M. Urban life promotes delayed dispersal and family living in a non-social bird species. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 1–15. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 49. York, M.M.; Rosenberg, D.K.; Sturm, K.K. Diet and food-niche breadth of burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia) in the Imperial Valley, California. West. N. Am. Nat. 2002, 62, 280–287. 50. Nabte, M.J.; Pardiñas, U.J.F.; Saba, S.L. The diet of the burrowing owl, Athene cunicularia, in the arid lands of northeastern Patagonia, Argentina. J. Arid Environ. 2008, 72, 1526–1530. [CrossRef] 51. Romero-Vidal, P. Within-Population Trophic Specialization is Unrelated to Urbanization in Burrowing Owls. Master’s Thesis, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Sevilla, Spain, 2017. 52. Smith, B.W.; Belthoff, J.R. Identification of ectoparasites on burrowing owls in southwestern Idaho. J. Raptor Res. 2001, 35, 159–161. 53. De Coster, G.; De Neve, L.; Martín-Gálvez, D.; Therry, L.; Lens, L. Variation in innate immunity in relation to ectoparasite load, age and season: A field experiment in great tits (Parus major). J. Exp. Biol. 2010, 17, 3012–3018. [CrossRef] 54. Altizer, S.; Nunn, C.L.; Thrall, P.H.; Gittleman, J.L.; Antonovics, J.; Cunningham, A.A.; Dobson, A.P.; Ezenwa, V.; Jones, K.E.; Pedersen, A.B.; et al. Social organization and parasite risk in mammals: Integrating theory and empirical studies. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2003, 34, 517–547. [CrossRef] 55. Wigglesworth, V.B. Insect Physiology; Chapman and Hall: London, UK, 1984. 56. Ehlers, J.; Poppert, S.; Ratovonamana, R.Y.; Ganzhorn, J.U.; Tappe, D.; Krüger, A. Ectoparasites of endemic and domestic animals in southwest Madagascar. Acta Trop. 2019, 196, 83–92. [CrossRef] 57. Klein, S.L. Hormonal and immunological mechanisms mediating sex differences in parasite infection. Parasite Immunol. 2004, 26, 247–264. [CrossRef] 58. Owen, J.P.; Nelson, A.C.; Clayton, D.H. Ecological immunology of bird-ectoprasites systems. Trends Parasitol. 2010, 26, 530–539. [CrossRef] 59. McCoy, K.D.; Boulinier, T.; Schjørring, S.; Michalakis, Y. Local adaptation of an ectoparasite Ixodes uriae to its seabird host. Evol. Ecol. Res. 2002, 4, 441–446. 60. Carrete, M.; Tella, J.L. High individual consistency in fear of humans throughout the adult lifespan of rural and urban burrowing owls. Sci. Rep. 2013, 3, 3524. [CrossRef] 61. Palma, R. Slide-mounting of lice: A detailed description of the Canada balsam technique. N. Z. Entomol. 1978, 6, 432–436. [CrossRef] 62. Price, R.D.; Beer, J.R. The species of Colpocephalum (Mallophaga: Menoponidae) known to occur on the Strigiformes. J. Kansas Entomol. Soc. 1963, 36, 58–64. 63. Clay, T. A Key to the genera of the Menoponidae (Amblycera: Mallophaga: Insecta). Bull. Br. Mus. (Nat. Hist) Entomol. 1969, 24, 3–26. 64. Clayton, D.H.; Price, R.D. Taxonomy of the Strigiphilus cursitans group (Iscnhocera: Philopteridae), parasites of owls (Strigiformes). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 1984, 77, 340–363. [CrossRef] 65. Price, R.D.; Hellenthal, R.A.; Palma, R.L.; Johnson, K.P.; Clayton, D.H. The chewing lice: World Checklist and Biological Overview; Illinois Natural History Survey Special Publication: Champaign, IL, USA, 2003. Biology 2022, 11, 1141 13 of 15 66. Linardi, P.M.; Guimarães, L.R. Systematic review of genera and subgenera of Rhopalopsyllinae (Siphonaptera: Rhopalopsyllidae) by phenetic and cladistic methods. J. Med. Entomol. 1993, 30, 161–170. [CrossRef] 67. Acosta, R.; Morrone, J.J. Clave ilustrada para la identificación de los taxones supraespecíficos de siphonaptera de México. Acta Zool. Mex. 2003, 89, 39–53. [CrossRef] 68. Lareschi, M.; Sánchez, J.; Autino, A. A review of the fleas (Insecta: Siphonaptera) from Argentina. Zootaxa 2016, 4103, 239–258. [CrossRef] 69. Krantz, G.W.; Walter, D.E. A manual of Acarology, 3rd ed.; Texas Tech University Press: Lubbock, TX, USA, 2009. 70. Margolis, L.; Esch, G.W.; Holmes, J.C.; Kuris, A.M.; Schad, G.A. The use of ecological terms in parasitology (report of an ad hoc committee of the American Society of Parasitologists). J. Parasitol. 1982, 68, 131–133. [CrossRef] 71. Bush, A.O.; Lafferty, K.D.; Lotz, J.M.; Shostak, A.W. Parasitology meets ecology on its own terms: Margolis et al. revisited. J. Parasitol. 1997, 83, 575–583. [CrossRef] 72. Hui, F.K.C.; Taskinen, S.; Pledger, S.; Foster, S.D.; Warton, D.I. Model-based approaches to unconstrained ordination. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2015, 6, 399–411. [CrossRef] 73. Warton, D.I.; Blanchet, F.G.; O’Hara, R.O.O.; Taskinen, S.; Walker, S.C.; Hui, F.K.C. So many variables: Joint modeling in community ecology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2015, 30, 766–779. [CrossRef] 74. Niku, J.; Brooks, W.; Herliansyah, R.; Hui, F.K.C.; Taskinen, S.; Warton, D.I. gllvm: Generalized Linear Latent Variable Models. R Package Version 2017, 1, 38. 75. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available online: https://www.r-project.org/. (accessed on 15 December 2021). 76. Kristensen, K.; Nielsen, A.; Berg, C.W.; Skaug, H.; Bell, B.M. TMB: Automatic Differentiation and Laplace Approximation. J. Stat. Softw. 2016, 70, 1–21. [CrossRef] 77. Niku, J.; Hui, F.K.C.; Taskinen, S.; Warton, D.I. Gllvm-Fast analysis of multivariate abundance data with Generalized Linear Latent Variable Models in R. 10. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2019, 10, 2173–2182. [CrossRef] 78. Gaussen, H.; Bagnouls, F. Saison Seche et Indice Xerotermique; Université de Toulouse, Faculté des Sciences: Toulouse, France, 1953. 79. Dunn, P.K.; Smyth, G.K. Randomized quantile residuals. J. Comput. Graph. Stat. 1996, 5, 236–244. 80. Skoruppa, M.K.; Pearce, B.; Woodin, M.C.; Hickman, G.C. Ectoparasites of burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) wintering in southern Texas. Tex. J. Sci. 2006, 58, 73–79. 81. Belthoff, J.R.; Bernhardt, S.A.; Ball, C.L.; Gregg, M.; Johnson, D.H.; Ketterling, R.; Price, E.; Tinker, J.K. Burrowing owls, Pulex irritans, and plague. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2015, 15, 556–564. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 82. Catanach, T.A.; Valim, M.P.; Weckstein, J.D.; Johnson, K.P. Cophylogenetic analysis of lice in the Colpocephalum complex (Phthiraptera: Amblycera). Zool. Scr. 2018, 47, 72–83. [CrossRef] 83. Coulombe, H.N. Behavior and population ecology of the burrowing owl, Speotyto cunicularia, in the Imperial Valley of California. Condor 1971, 73, 162–176. [CrossRef] 84. Baladrón, A.V.; Cavalli, M.; Bó, M.S.; Isacch, J.P. Nest dimensions, burrow-lining, and decoration behavior of burrowing owls in the Pampas. J. Raptor Res. 2021, 55, 255–266. [CrossRef] 85. Clayton, D.H.; Lee, P.L.M.; Tompkins, D.M.; Brodie, E.D., III. Reciprocal natural selection on host-parasite phenotypes. Am. Nat. 1999, 154, 261–270. [CrossRef] 86. Dik, B. Chewing-lice species (Phthiraptera) found on domestic and wild birds in Turkey. Turk. Parazitol. Derg. 2010, 34, 55–60. 87. Whatton, J.F.; Eckerlin, R.P. Snowy Owl Brings New Record of Chewing Louse to Virginia. Banisteria 2016, 46, 29–30. 88. Faraji, F.; Halliday, B. Five new species of mites (Acari: Laelapidae) associated with large Australian cockroaches (Blattodea: Blaberidae). Int. J. Acarol. 2009, 35, 245–264. [CrossRef] 89. Martins-Hatano, F.; Raices, D.S.; Gazeta, G.S.; Serra-Freire, N.M.; Gettinger, D.; Bergallo, H.G. Community composition of laelapine mites (Acari: Laelapidae) associated with the nests and fur of Cerradomys subflavus (Wagner, 1842). J. Nat. Hist. 2011, 45, 1679–1688. [CrossRef] 90. Bush, S.E.; Malenke, J.R. Host defence mediates interspecific competition in ectoparasites. J. Anim. Ecol. 2008, 77, 558–564. [CrossRef] 91. Eswarappa, S.M.; Estrela, S.; Brown, S.P. Within-host dynamics of multi-species infections: Facilitation, competition and virulence. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e38730. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 92. Moyer, B.R.; Gardiner, D.W.; Clayton, D.H. Impact of feather molt on ectoparasites: Looks can be deceiving. Oecologia 2002, 131, 203–210. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 93. Doña, J.; Proctor, H.; Serrano, D.; Johnson, K.P.; Oddy-van Oploo, A.; Huguet-Tapia, J.C.; Ascunce, M.S.; Jovani, R. Feather mites play a role in cleaning host feathers: New insights from DNA metabarcoding and microscopy. Mol. Ecol. 2019, 28, 203–218. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 94. Liberman, V.; Khokhlova, I.S.; Degen, A.A.; Krasnov, B.R. Reproductive consequences of host age in a desert flea. Parasitology 2013, 140, 461–470. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 95. Thomsen, L. Behavior and ecology of burrowing owls in the Oakland municipal airport. Condor 1971, 73, 177–192. [CrossRef] 96. Forsman, E.D.; Wight, H.M. Allopreening in owls: What are its functions? Auk 1979, 96, 525–531. 97. Václav, R.; Calero-Torralbo, M.A.; Valera, F. Ectoparasite load is linked to ontogeny and cell-mediated immunity in an avian host system with pronounced hatching asynchrony. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 2008, 94, 463–473. [CrossRef] Biology 2022, 11, 1141 14 of 15 98. Bize, P.; Roulin, A.; Tella, J.L.; Richner, H. Female-biased mortality in experimentally parasitized Alpine swift Apus melba nestlings. Funct. Ecol. 2005, 19, 405–413. [CrossRef] 99. Lewis, S.; Roberts, G.; Harris, M.P.; Prigmore, C.; Wanless, S. Fitness increases with partner and neighbour allopreening. Biol. Let. 2007, 3, 386–389. [CrossRef] 100. Radford, A.N.; Plessis, M.A.D. Dual function of allopreening in the cooperatively breeding green woodhoopoe, Phoeniculus purpureus. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2006, 61, 221–230. [CrossRef] 101. Kenny, E.; Birkhead, T.R.; Green, J.P. Allopreening in birds is associated with parental cooperation over offspring care and stable pair bonds across years. Behav. Ecol. 2017, 28, 1142–1148. [CrossRef] 102. Gill, S.A. Strategic use of allopreening in family-living wrens. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2012, 66, 757–763. 103. Teunissen, N.; Kingma, S.A.; Hall, M.L.; Aranzamendi, N.H.; Komdeur, J.; Peters, A. More than kin: Subordinates foster strong bonds with relatives and potential mates in a social bird. Behav. Ecol. 2018, 29, 1316–1324. [CrossRef] 104. Møller, A.P.; Sorci, G.; Erritzøe, J. Sexual dimorphism in immune defense. Am. Nat. 1998, 152, 605–619. [CrossRef] 105. Moreno, J.; Potti, J.; Yorio, P.; Borboroglu, P.G. Sex differences in cell-mediated immunity in the Magellanic penguin Spheniscus magellanicus. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 2001, 38, 111–116. 106. Moreno-Rueda, G. Body-mass-dependent trade-off between immune response and uropygial gland size in house sparrows Passer domesticus. J. Avian Biol. 2015, 46, 40–45. [CrossRef] 107. Valdebenito, J.O.; Halimubieke, N.; Lendvai, A.Z.; Figuerola, J.; Eichhorn, G.; Székely, T. Seasonal variation in sex-specific immunity in wild birds. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 1349. [CrossRef] 108. Ronget, V.; Gaillard, J.M.; Coulson, T.; Garratt, M.; Gueyffier, F.; Lega, J.C.; Lemaître, J.F. Causes and consequences of variation in offspring body mass: Meta-analyses in birds and mammals. Biol. Rev. 2018, 93, 1–27. [CrossRef] 109. Montalti, D.; Salibián, A. Uropygial gland size and avian habitat. Ornitol. Neotrop. 2000, 11, 297–306. 110. Møller, A.P.; Rózsa, L. Parasite biodiversity and host defenses: Chewing lice and immune response of their avian hosts. Oecologia 2005, 142, 169–176. [CrossRef] 111. Ancillotto, L.; Studer, V.; Howard, T.; Smith, V.S.; McAlister, E.; Beccaloni, J.; Manzia, F.; Renzopaoli, F.; Bosso, L.; Russo, D.; et al. Environmental drivers of parasite load and species richness in introduced parakeets in an urban landscape. Parasitol. Res. 2018, 117, 3591–3599. [CrossRef] 112. Fernández-Gómez, L.; Palma, A.; Luna, Á.; Romero-Vidal, P.; Carrete, M. Diet Differences for Rural and Urban Burrowing Owls in Micromammals Composition. Bachelor’s Thesis, Environmental Sciences. Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Seville, Spain, 2019. 113. Mappes, T.; Mappes, J.; Kotiaho, J. Ectoparasites, nest site choice, and breeding success in the pied flycatcher. Oecologia 1994, 98, 147–149. [CrossRef] 114. Krasnov, B.R.; Khokhlova, I.S.; Fielden, L.J.; Burdelova, N.V. Development rates of two Xenopsilla flea species in relation to air temperature and humidity. Med. Vet. Entomol. 2001, 15, 249–258. [CrossRef] 115. Krasnov, B.R.; Khokhlova, I.S.; Fielden, L.J.; Burdelova, N.V. Effect of air temperature and humidity on the survival of pre-imaginal stages of two flea species (Siphonaptera: Pulicidae). J. Med. Entomol. 2001, 38, 629–637. [CrossRef] 116. Heeb, P.; Kölliker, M.; Richner, H. Bird-ectoparasite interactions, nest humidity, and ectoparasite community structure. Ecology 2000, 81, 958–968. 117. Dearborn, D.C.; Kark, S. Motivations for conserving urban biodiversity. Conserv. Biol. 2010, 24, 432–440. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 118. Alfaleh, F.A.; Alyousif, M.S.; Al-Quraishy, S.; Al-Shawa, Y.R. Eimeria biarmicus sp.n. (Apicomplexa: Eimeriidae) infecting falcons from the genus Falco in Saudi Arabia. Parasitol. Res. 2012, 110, 1655–1657. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 119. de Andery, D.A.; Ferreira Junior, F.; Araújo, A.V.; da Vilela, D.R.; Marques, M.; Marin, S.Y.; Horta, R.S.; Ortiz, M.C.; Resende, J.S.; Martins, N.S. Health assessment of raptors in triage in Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil. Rev. Bras. Cien. Avic. 2013, 15, 247–256. [CrossRef] 120. Atyeo, W.T.; Braasch, N.L.; Norman, L. The feather mite genus Proctophyllodes (Sarcoptiformes: Proctophyllodidae). Bull. Univ. Nebr. State Mus. 1996, 39, 1–354. 121. Brown, J.H. Sylvatic plague: The recovery of fleas from the burrowing owl and its burrow in a plague area in Alberta. Entomol. News 1994, 55, 15–18. 122. Buscher, H.N. Echinoparyphium speotyto sp. n. (Trematoda: Echinostomatidae) from the burrowing owl in Oklahoma, with a discussion of the genus Echinoparyphium. J. Parasitol. 1978, 64, 52–58. [CrossRef] 123. Daciuk, J.; Cicchino, A.C.; Mauri, R.; Capri, J.J. Notas faunísticas y bioecológicas de Península Valdes y Patagonia. XXIV. Artrópodos ectoparásitos de mamíferos y aves colectados en la Península Valdes y alrededores (Provincia de Chubut, Argentina). Physis C 1981, 39, 41–48. 124. da Silva, A.S.; Zanette, R.A.; Lara, V.M.; Gressler, L.T.; Carregaro, A.B.; Santurio, J.M.; Monteiro, S.G. Gastrointestinal parasites of owls (Strigiformes) kept in captivity in the Southern region of Brazil. Parasitol. Res. 2009, 104, 485–487. [CrossRef] 125. de Almeida Pedroso, L.G.; Hernandes, F.A. New records of feather mites (Acariformes: Astigmata) from non- passerine birds (Aves) in Brazil. Check List. Biodiv. Data J. 2016, 12, 2000. 126. Drago, F.B.; Lunaschi, L.I.; Cabrera, N.E.; Barbieri, L. Helminth parasites of four species of strigiform birds from Central and Northeastern Argentina. Rev. Arg. Parasitol. 2015, 4, 15–23. 127. Dusek, R.J.; Iko, W.M.; Hofmeister, E.K. Occurrence of West Nile virus infection in raptors at the Salton Sea, California. J. Wildl. Dis. 2010, 46, 889–895. [CrossRef] Biology 2022, 11, 1141 15 of 15 128. Fontanelli-Vaz, F.; Teixeira, V.N. New records of three hippoboscid species on newly captured birds from nature in Paraná, Brazil. Rev. Bras. Parasitol. Vet. 2016, 25, 501–503. 129. Franson, J.C. Protozoal hepatitis in a western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea). Southw. Nat. 2017, 62, 75–77. [CrossRef] 130. González-Acuña, D.; Rodrigo Muñoz, C.; Cicchino, A.; Figueroa, R.A. Lice of Chilean owls: A first description. J. Raptor Res. 2006, 40, 301–302. [CrossRef] 131. Goulart, T.M. Ácaros Asociados à “Avoante” Zenaida Auriculata (Des Murs, 1847) na Regiao de Campinas-SP, Brasil. Tesis de Maestría; Universidade Estadual de Campinas: Campinas, Brazil, 2011. 132. Graciolli, G.; Barros de Carvalho, C.J. Hippoboscidae (Diptera, Hippoboscoidea) no Estado do Paraná, Brasil: Chaves de identificação, hospedeiros e distribuição geográfica. Rev. Bras. Zool. 2003, 20, 667–674. [CrossRef] 133. Hernández-Orts, J.S.; Pinacho-Pinacho, C.D.; García-Varela, M.; Kostadinova, A. Maritrema corai n. sp. (Digenea: Microphallidae) from the white ibis Eudocimus albus (Linnaeus) (Aves: Threskiornithidae) in Mexico. Parasitol. Res. 2015, 115, 547–559. [CrossRef] 134. Jellison, W.L. The burrowing owl as a host of the argasid tick, Ornithodoros parkeri. Public Health Rep. 1940, 55, 206–208. [CrossRef] 135. Kinsella, J.M.; Foster, G.W.; Forrester, D.J. Parasitic helminths of five species of owls from Florida, U.S.A. Comp. Parasitol. 2001, 68, 130–134. 136. Kurey, W.J. Ectoparasitic Acarina (Analgoidea) from Non-Passeriform Birds of North America. Master’s Thesis, Youngstown State University, Youngstown, OH, USA, 1976. 137. Liébana, M.S.; Santillán, M.Á.; Cicchino, A.C.; Sarasola, J.H.; Martínez, P.; Cabezas, S.; Bó, M.S. Ectoparasites in free-ranging American kestrels in Argentina: Implications for the transmission of viral diseases. J. Raptor Res. 2011, 45, 335–341. [CrossRef] 138. Llyuh, M.P.; Goncharov, A.I. On the fleas IDS. Caucasian. Ornithol. Gaz. 2005, 17, 5–8. (In Bielorussian) 139. Loomis, R.B. The chigger mites of Kansas (Acarina, Trombiculidae). Univ. Kansas Sci. Bull. 1956, 37, 1195–1442. 140. Marietto-Gonçalves, G.A.; Martins, T.F.; Andreatti Filho, R.L. Chewing lice (Insecta, Phthiraptera) parasitizing birds in Botucatu, SP, Brazil. Rev. Bras. C. Vet. 2012, 19, 206–212. [CrossRef] 141. Mascarenhas, C.S.; Bernardon, F.F.; Gastal, S.; Müller, G. Checklist of the parasitic nasal mites of birds in Brazil. Syst. App. Acarol. 2018, 23, 1672–1692. [CrossRef] 142. Mueller, N.S.; Mueller, H.C.; Berger, D.D. Host records and phenology of louse-flies on Wisconsin birds. Trans. Wis. Acad. Sci. Arts Lett. 1969, 57, 189–207. 143. Need, J.T.; Dale, W.E.; Keirans, J.E.; Dasch, G.A. Annotated list of ticks (Acari: Ixodidae, Argasidae) reported in Peru: Distribution, hosts, and bibliography. J. Med. Entomol. 1991, 28, 590–597. [CrossRef] 144. Pence, D.B.; Bergan, J.F. Hypopi (Acari: Hypoderatidae) from Owls (Aves: Strigiformes: Strigidae). J. Med. Entomol. 1996, 33, 828–834. [CrossRef] 145. Philips, J.R. A review and checklist of the parasitic mites (Acarina) of the Falconiformes and Strigiformes. J. Raptor Res. 2000, 34, 210–231. 146. Redig, P.T.; Cooper, J.E.; Remple, D.; Hunter, D.B. Raptor Biomedicine; Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis, MN, USA, 1993. 147. Riding, C.S. Effects of Old Nest Material on Occupancy and Reuse of Artificial Burrows, and Breeding Dispersal by Burrowing Owls (Athene cunicularia) in Southwestern Idaho. Ph.D. Thesis, Boise State University, Boise, ID, USA, 2010. 148. Schwan, T.G. Nosopsyllus fasciatus parasiting house mice on Southeast Farallon Island, California (Siphonaptera: Ceratophyllidae). Pan-Pac. Entomol. 1984, 60, 345–349. 149. Seery, B.D.; Biggins, D.E.; Montenieri, J.A.; Enscore, R.E.; Tandia, D.T.; Gage, K.L. Treatment of black-tailed prairie dog burrows with deltamethrin to control fleas (Insecta: Siphonaptera) and plague. J. Med. Entomol. 2003, 40, 718–722. [CrossRef] 150. Silva, T.M.; Sakai-Okamoto, A.; Firmino da Silva, L.A.; Domeneghetti-Smaniotto, B.; Da Silva, R.J.; Andreatti-Filho, R.L. New record of Pelecitus sp. (Nematoda, Onchocercidae) as a parasite of Athene cunicularia (Strigiformes, Strigidae) in southeastern Brazil. Rev. Bras. Parasitol. Vet. 2014, 23, 274–275. 151. Skoracki, M.; Unsoeld, M.; Marciniak, N.; Sikora, B. Diversity of quill mites of the family Syringophilidae (Acari: Prostigmata) parasitizing owls (Aves: Strigiformes) with remarks on the host-parasite relationships. J. Med. Entomol. 2016, 53, 815–826. [CrossRef] 152. Smith, B.W. Nest-Site Selection, Ectoparasites, and Mitigation Techniques: Studies of Burrowing Owls and Artificial Burrow Systems in Southwestern Idaho. Master’S Thesis, Boise State University, Boise, ID, USA, 1999. 153. Thompson, G.B. XXX.-A list of the type-hosts of the Mallophaga and the lice described from them. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 1950, 3, 365–382. [CrossRef] 154. Vitaliano, S.N.; Soares, H.S.; Pena, H.F.J.; Dubey, J.P.; Gennari, S.M. Serologic evidence of Toxoplasma gondii infection in wild birds and mammals from southeast Brazil. J. Zoo Wildl. Med. 2014, 45, 197–199. [CrossRef]