Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T23:01:05.004Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relative infection levels and taxonomic distances among the host species used by a parasite: insights into parasite specialization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 December 2004

R. POULIN
R. POULIN
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Otago, P.O. Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Parasites often exploit more than one host species at any stage in their life-cycle, but the extent to which these host species are used varies greatly. Parasites typically achieve their highest prevalence, intensity and/or abundance in one host species (the principal host), whereas infection levels in auxiliary hosts range from relatively high to very low. The present study examines what influences the distribution of parasite individuals among their different host species, using metazoan parasites that use freshwater fish as their definitive or only host. Specifically, I test the hypothesis that differences in relative infection levels by a parasite among its auxiliary hosts are proportional to the taxonomic distance between the respective auxiliary hosts and the parasite's principal host. Taxonomic distance among hosts is a surrogate measure of their similarity in terms of ecology, physiology and immunology. Using data on 29 parasite species and 6 fish communities, for a total of 47 parasite-locality combinations, it was found that taxonomic distance between the auxiliary hosts and the principal host had no real influence on infection levels in auxiliary hosts, measured as either prevalence, intensity or abundance. The analysis revealed differences in the degree of specialization among major groups of parasites: in terms of abundance or intensity, auxiliary hosts were less important for cestodes than for nematodes and copepods. The lack of an effect of taxonomic distance may indicate that ecological similarity among host species, arising from convergence and not from relatedness, is more important than host phylogeny or taxonomy. Although the results are based on a limited number of parasite taxa, they suggest that parasites may be opportunistic in their colonization of new hosts, and not severely constrained by evolutionary baggage.

Keywords

fishhelminthshost colonizationhost specificityphylogeny
Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 130 , Issue 1 , January 2005 , pp. 109 - 115
Copyright
© 2004 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

ARAI, H. P. & MUDRY, D. R. (1983). Protozoan and metazoan parasites of fishes from the headwaters of the Parsnip and McGregor Rivers, British Columbia: a study of possible parasite transfaunations. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 40, 1676–1684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ARTHUR, J. R., MARGOLIS, L. & ARAI, H. P. (1976). Parasites of fishes of Aishihik and Stevens Lakes, Yukon Territory, and potential consequences of their interlake transfer through a proposed water diversion for hydroelectrical purposes. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 33, 2489–2499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BANGHAM, R. V. (1955). Studies on fish parasites of Lake Huron and Manitoulin Island. American Midland Naturalist 53, 184–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BARGER, M. A. & ESCH, G. W. (2002). Host specificity and the distribution–abundance relationship in a community of parasites infecting fishes in streams of North Carolina. Journal of Parasitology 88, 446–453.Google Scholar
BROOKS, D. R. & McLENNAN, D. A. (1991). Phylogeny, Ecology, and Behavior: A Research Program in Comparative Biology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
DECHTIAR, A. O. (1972). Parasites of fish from Lake of the Woods, Ontario. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 29, 275–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DOGIEL, V. A., PETRUSHEVSKI, G. K. & POLYANSKI, Y. I. (1961). Parasitology of Fishes. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh.
FUTUYMA, D. J. & MORENO, G. (1988). The evolution of ecological specialization. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 19, 207–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IZSÁK, J. & PAPP, L. (1995). Application of the quadratic entropy index for diversity studies on drosophilid species assemblages. Environmental and Ecological Statistics 2, 213–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LEONG, T. S. & HOLMES, J. C. (1981). Communities of metazoan parasites in open water fishes of Cold Lake, Alberta. Journal of Fish Biology 18, 693–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MORRIS, D. W. (1987). Ecological scale and habitat use. Ecology 68, 362–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NELSON, J. S. (1994). Fishes of the World, 3rd Edn. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
POULIN, R. (1992). Determinants of host specificity in parasites of freshwater fishes. International Journal for Parasitology 22, 753–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
POULIN, R. (1998 a). Evolutionary Ecology of Parasites: From Individuals to Communities. Chapman and Hall, London.
POULIN, R. (1998 b). Large-scale patterns of host use by parasites of freshwater fishes. Ecology Letters 1, 118–128.Google Scholar
POULIN, R. & MOUILLOT, D. (2003). Parasite specialization from a phylogenetic perspective: a new index of host specificity. Parasitology 126, 473–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
POULIN, R. & MOUILLOT, D. (2004). The relationship between specialization and local abundance: the case of helminth parasites of birds. Oecologia 140, 372–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
RADTKE, A., McLENNAN, D. A. & BROOKS, D. R. (2002). Resource tracking in North American Telorchis spp. (Digenea: Plagiorchiformes: Telorchidae). Journal of Parasitology 88, 874–879.Google Scholar
RAUQUE, C. A., VIOZZI, G. P. & SEMENAS, L. G. (2003). Component population study of Acanthocephalus tumescens (Acanthocephala) in fishes from Lake Moreno, Argentina. Folia Parasitologica 50, 72–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
RICOTTA, C. (2004). A parametric diversity measure combining the relative abundances and taxonomic distinctiveness of species. Diversity and Distributions 10, 143–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ROHDE, K. (1980). Host specificity indices of parasites and their application. Experientia 36, 1369–1371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ROHDE, K. (1994). Niche restriction in parasites: proximate and ultimate causes. Parasitology 109, S69–S84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SKERIKOVA, A., HYPSA, V. & SCHOLZ, T. (2001). Phylogenetic analysis of European species of Proteocephalus (Cestoda: Proteocephalidea): compatibility of molecular and morphological data, and parasite-host coevolution. International Journal for Parasitology 31, 1121–1128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
THOMPSON, J. N. (1994). The Coevolutionary Process. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.CrossRef