Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T01:28:17.711Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Testing the niche apportionment hypothesis with parasite communities: is random assortment always the rule?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2006

G. MUÑOZ ,
D. MOUILLOT  and
R. POULIN
G. MUÑOZ
Affiliation:
School of Molecular and Microbial Sciences, Department of Microbiology and Parasitology; University of Queensland, Brisbane 4072, Qld, Australia
D. MOUILLOT
Affiliation:
UMR CNRS-UMII 5119 ECOLAG, Université Montpellier II CC 093, 34095 Montpellier Cedex 5, France
R. POULIN
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Niche apportionment models have only been applied once to parasite communities. Only the random assortment model (RA), which indicates that species abundances are independent from each other and that interspecific competition is unimportant, provided a good fit to 3 out of 6 parasite communities investigated. The generality of this result needs to be validated, however. In this study we apply 5 niche apportionment models to the parasite communities of 14 fish species from the Great Barrier Reef. We determined which model fitted the data when using either numerical abundance or biomass as an estimate of parasite abundance, and whether the fit of niche apportionment models depends on how the parasite community is defined (e.g. ecto, endoparasites or all parasites considered together). The RA model provided a good fit for the whole community of parasites in 7 fish species when using biovolume (as a surrogate of biomass) as a measure of species abundance. The RA model also fitted observed data when ecto- and endoparasites were considered separately, using abundance or biovolume, but less frequently. Variation in fish sizes among species was not associated with the probability of a model fitting the data. Total numerical abundance and biovolume of parasites were not related across host species, suggesting that they capture different aspects of abundance. Biovolume is not only a better measurement to use with niche-orientated models, it should also be the preferred descriptor to analyse parasite community structure in other contexts. Most of the biological assumptions behind the RA model, i.e. randomness in apportioning niche space, lack of interspecific competition, independence of abundance among different species, and species with variable niches in changeable environments, are in accordance with some previous findings on parasite communities. Thus, parasite communities may generally be unsaturated with species, with empty niches, and interspecific interactions may generally be unimportant in determining parasite community structure.

Keywords

community structureparasite biovolumecoral reef fishniche apportionment hypothesisTokeshi's models
Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 132 , Issue 5 , May 2006 , pp. 717 - 724
Copyright
2006 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

Adamson, M. L. and Noble, S. J. ( 1993). Interspecific and intraspecific competition among pinworms in the hindgut of Periplaneta americana. Journal of Parasitology 79, 50–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernardi, G., Bucciarelli, G., Costagliola, D., Robertson, D. R. and Heiser, J. B. ( 2004). Evolution of coral reef fish Thalassoma spp. (Labridae). 1. Molecular phylogeny and biogeography. Marine Biology 144, 369–375.Google Scholar
Bush, A. O. and Holmes, J. C. ( 1986). Intestinal helminths of lesser scaup ducks: an interactive community. Canadian Journal of Zoology 64, 142–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bush, A. O., Lafferty, K. D., Lotz, J. M. and Shostak, A. W. ( 1997). Parasitology meets ecology on its own terms: Margolis et al. revisited. Journal of Parasitology 83, 575–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiarucci, A., Wilson, J., Anderson, B. J. and De Dominicis, V. ( 1999). Cover versus biomass as an estimate of species abundance: does it make a difference to the conclusions? Journal of Vegetation Science 10, 35–42.Google Scholar
Esch, G. W., Bush, A. O. and Aho, J. M. ( 1990). Parasite Communities: Patterns and Processes. Chapman and Hall, London.
George-Nascimento, M., Garcías, F. and Muñoz, G. ( 2002). Parasite body volume and infracommunity patterns in the southern pomfret Brama australis (Pisces: Bramidae). Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 75, 835–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
George-Nascimento, M., Muñoz, G., Marquet, P. and Poulin, R. ( 2004). Testing the energetic equivalence rule with helminth endoparasites of vertebrates. Ecology Letters 7, 527–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gotelli, N. J. and Rohde, K. ( 2002). Co-occurrence of ectoparasites of marine fishes: a null model analysis. Ecology Letters 5, 86–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haukisalmi, V. and Henttonen, H. ( 1993). Coexistence in helminths of the bank vole Clethrionomys glareolus. I. Patterns of co-occurrence. Journal of Animal Ecology 62, 221–229.Google Scholar
Hubbell, S. P. ( 2001). The Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and Biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Kennedy, C. R. and Guegan, J. F. ( 1996). The number of niches in intestinal helminth communities of Anguilla anguilla: are there enough spaces for parasites? Parasitology 113, 293–302.Google Scholar
Larsen, A. H., Bresciani, J. and Buchmann, K. ( 2002). Interactions between ecto- and endoparasites in trout Salmo trutta. Veterinary Parasitology 103, 167–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawton, J. H. ( 1999). Are three general laws in ecology? Oikos 84, 177–192.Google Scholar
Mason, N. W. H., MacGillivray, K., Steel, J. B. and Wilson, J. B. ( 2002). Do plant modules describe community structure better than biomass? A comparison of three abundance measures. Journal of Vegetation Science 13, 185–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morand, S., Poulin, R., Rohde, K. and Hayward, C. ( 1999). Aggregation and species coexistence of ectoparasites of marine fishes. International Journal for Parasitology 29, 663–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mouillot, D., George-Nascimento, M. and Poulin, R. ( 2003). How parasites divide resources: a test of the niche apportionment hypothesis. Journal of Animal Ecology 72, 757–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muñoz, G. and Cribb, T. H. ( 2005). Infracommunity structure of parasites of Hemigymnus melapterus (Pisces: Labridae) from Lizard Island, Australia; the importance of habitat and parasite body size. Journal of Parasitology 91, 38–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poulin, R. ( 1996). Richness, nestedness, and randomness in parasite infracommunity structure. Oecologia 105, 545–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poulin, R. ( 1998). Evolutionary Ecology of Parasites. Chapman and Hall, London.
Poulin, R. ( 2004). Parasites and the neutral theory of biodiversity. Ecography 27, 119–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poulin, R., Mouillot, D. and George-Nascimento, M. ( 2003). The relationship between species richness and productivity in metazoan parasite communities. Oecologia 137, 277–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purvis, A. and Rambaut, A. ( 1994). Comparative Analysis by Independent Contrasts (C.A.I.C.) version 2.0. A statistical package for the Apple Macintosh. http://www.bio.ic.ac.uk/evolve/software/caic/.
Rohde, K. ( 1979). A critical evaluation of intrinsic and extrinsic factors responsible for niche restriction in parasites. American Naturalist 114, 648–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohde, K. ( 1994). Niche restriction in parasites: proximate and ultimate causes. Parasitology 109 (Suppl.), S69–S84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohde, K. ( 2001). Spatial scaling laws may not apply to most animal species. Oikos 93, 499–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohde, K., Hayward, C., Heap, M. and Gosper, D. ( 1994). A tropical assemblage of ectoparasites: gill and head parasites of Lethrinus miniatus (Teleostei, Lethrinidae). International Journal for Parasitology 24, 1031–1053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sasal, P., Trouve, S., Muller-Graf, C. and Morand, S. ( 1999). Specificity and host predictability: a comparative analysis among monogenean parasites of fish. Journal of Animal Ecology 68, 437–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stock, T. M. and Holmes, J. C. ( 1988). Functional relationship and microhabitat distributions of enteric helminths of grebes (Podicipedidae): the evidence for interactive communities. Journal of Parasitology 74, 214–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tokeshi, M. ( 1990). Niche apportionment or random assortment: species abundance patterns revisited. Journal of Animal Ecology 59, 1129–1146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tokeshi, M. ( 1993). Species abundance patterns and community structure. Advances in Ecological Research 24, 111–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tokeshi, M. ( 1995). Randomness and aggregation: analysis of dispersion in an epiphytic chironomid community. Freshwater Biology 34, 567–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tokeshi, M. ( 1999). Species Coexistence: Ecological and Evolutionary Perspectives. Blackwell Science, Oxford.
Weiher, E. and Keddy, P. ( 1999). Ecological Assembly Rules: Perspectives, Advances, Retreats. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRef
Westneat, M. W. ( 1993). Phylogenetic relationship of the tribe Cheilinini (Labridae: Perciformes). Bulletin of Marine Science 52, 351–394.Google Scholar
Westneat, M. W. and Alfaro, M. E. ( 2005). Phylogenetic relationships and evolutionary history of the reef fish family Labridae. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 36, 370–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar