Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 63, Issue 5, pp 731–739 | Cite as

Love thy neighbour? Social nesting pattern, host mass and nest size affect ectoparasite intensity in Darwin’s tree finches

Original Paper

Abstract

Social nesting behaviour is commonly associated with high prevalence and intensity of parasites in intraspecific comparisons. Little is known about the effects of interspecific host breeding density for parasite intensity in generalist host–parasite systems. Darwin’s small tree finch (Camarhynchus parvulus) on Santa Cruz Island, Galápagos Islands, nests in both heterospecific aggregations and at solitary sites. All Darwin finch species on Santa Cruz Island are infested with larvae of the invasive blood-sucking fly Philornis downsi. In this study, we test the prediction that total P. downsi intensity (the number of parasites per nest) is higher for nests in heterospecific aggregations than at solitary nests. We also examine variation in P. downsi intensity in relation to three predictor variables: (1) nest size, (2) nest bottom thickness and (3) host adult body mass, both within and across finch species. The results show that (1) total P. downsi intensity was significantly higher for small tree finch nests with many close neighbours; (2) finches with increased adult body mass built larger nests (inter- and intraspecific comparison); (3) parasite intensity increased significantly with nest size across species and in the small tree finch alone; and (4) nest bottom thickness did not vary with nest size or parasite intensity. These results provide evidence for an interaction between social nesting behaviour, nest characteristics and host mass that influences the distribution and potential impact of mobile ectoparasites in birds.

Keywords

Body mass Darwin’s finches Ectoparasites Nesting aggregation Nest size 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the Galápagos National Park Service and the Charles Darwin Research Station for the opportunity to work on the Galápagos archipelago. This study was generously funded by the Max Planck Institute for Ornithology and the Austrian Academy of Sciences between 2000 and 2002, with awards to S. Kleindorfer, in 2004 by Flinders University through a Research Establishment Grant, Conservation International and the American Bird Conservancy. TAME airlines provided reduced airfare to the Galápagos. All procedures followed the Guidelines for the Use of Animals in Research (Flinders University, Charles Darwin Research Station, and Galápagos National Parks), the legal requirements of Ecuador, and were approved by the Animal Welfare Committee of Flinders University (permit E189). We thank: Carlos Vinueza, Santiago Torres, Gustavo Jiménez, Rebekah Christensen, and Jeremy Robertson for their dedicated field assistance, Hernan Vargas and David Wiedenfeld for logistical support and Frank J. Sulloway for helpful comments on the manuscript.

References

  1. Aviles L (1999) Cooperation and non-linear dynamics: an ecological perspective on the evolution of sociality. Evol Ecol Res 1:459–477Google Scholar
  2. Brown CR, Brown MB (1996) Coloniality in the cliff swallow: the effect of group size on social behaviour. University of Chicago Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Burger J (1981) A model for the evolution of mixed-species colonies of Ciconiiformes. Quart Rev Biol 56:143–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bush AO, Lafferty KD, Lotz JM, Shostak AW (1997) Parasitology meets ecology on its own terms: Margolis et al. revisited. J Parasitol 83:575–583PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Causton CE, Peck SB, Sinclair BJ, Roque-Albelo L, Hodgson CJ, Landry B (2006) Alien insects: threats and implications for conservation of Galápagos Islands. Ann Entomol Soc Am 99:121–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clotfelter ED, Yasukawa K (1999) The effect of aggregated nesting on red-winged blackbird nest success and brood parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds. Condor 101:729–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Côté IM, Poulin R (1995) Parasitism and group size in social animals: a meta-analysis. Behav Ecol 6:159–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Danchin E, Wagner RE (1997) The evolution of coloniality: the emergence of new perspectives. Trends Ecol Evol 12:343–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dudaniec RY, Kleindorfer S (2006) The effects of the parasitic flies Philornis (Diptera: Muscidae) on birds. Emu 106:13–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dudaniec RY, Kleindorfer S, Fessl B (2006) Effects of the introduced ectoparasite Philornis downsi on haemoglobin level and nestling survival in Darwin’s small ground finch (Geospiza fuliginosa). Austral Ecol 31:88–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dudaniec RY, Fessl B, Kleindorfer S (2007) Interannual and interspecific variation in intensity of the parasitic fly, Philornis downsi, in Darwin’s finches. Biol Conservat 139:325–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dudaniec RY, Gardner MG, Kleindorfer S (2008a) Isolation, characterization and multiplex polymerase chain reaction of novel mircrosatellite loci for the avian parasite Philornis downsi (Diptera: Muscidae). Mol Ecol Resources 8:142–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dudaniec RY, Gardner MG, Donnellan S, Kleindofer S (2008b) Genetic variation in the invasive avian parasite, Philornis downsi (Diptera, Muscidae), on the Galápagos Archipelago. BMC Ecol 8:13–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Duncan P, Vigne N (1979) The effect of group size in horses on the rate of attacks by blood-sucking flies. Anim Behav 27:623–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dvorak M, Vargas H, Fessl B, Tebbich S (2004) On the verge of extinction: a survey of the mangrove finch Camarhynchus heliobates and its habitat on the Galápagos Islands. Oryx 38:171–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eliasson U (1984) Native climax forests. In: Perry R (ed) Key environments, Galápagos. Pergamon, Oxford, pp 101–114Google Scholar
  17. Fenton A, Fairbairn JP, Norman R, Hudson PJ (2002) Parasite transmission: reconciling theory and reality. J Anim Ecol 71:893–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fessl B, Tebbich S (2002) Philornis downsi—a recently discovered parasite on the Galápagos archipelago: a threat for Darwin’s finches? Ibis 144:445–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fessl B, Kleindorfer S, Tebbich S (2006a) An experimental study on the effects of an introduced parasite in Darwin’s finches. Biol Conservat 127:55–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fessl B, Sinclair BJ, Kleindorfer S (2006b) The life cycle of Philornis downsi (Diptera: Muscidae) parasitizing Darwin’s finches and its impacts on nestling survival. Parasitology 133:739–747PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gibson G, Torr SJ (1999) Visual and olfactory responses of haematophagous Diptera to host stimuli. Med Vet Entomol 13:2–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gold CS, Dahlsten DL (1989) Prevalence, habitat selection, and biology of Protocalliphora (Diptera, Calliphoridae) found in nests of mountain and chestnut-backed chickadees in California. Hilgardia 57:1–19Google Scholar
  23. Grant PR, Grant BR (2008) How and why species multiply: The radiation of Darwin’s finches. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  24. Grant PR, Grant BR, Petren K, Keller LF (2005) Extinction behind our backs: the possible fate of one of the Darwin’s finch species on Isla Floreana, Galápagos. Biol Conservat 122:499–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hamilton WD (1971) Geometry for the selfish herd. J Theor Biol 31:295–311PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hoi H, Darlova A, König C, Kistofík J (1998) The relations between colony size, breeding density and ectoparasite loads of adult European bee-eaters (Merops apiaster). Ecoscience 5:156–163Google Scholar
  27. Holt D, Kotler B (1987) Short-term apparent competition. Am Nat 130:412–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hughes WOH, Petersen KS, Ugelvig LV, Pedersen D, Thomsen L, Poulsen M, Boomsma JJ (2004) Density-dependence and within-host competition in a semelparous parasite of leaf-cutting ants. BMC Evol Biol 4:45–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kleindorfer S (2007a) Nesting success in Darwin’s small tree finch (Camarhynchus parvulus): evidence of female preference for older males and more concealed nests. Anim Behav 74:795–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kleindorfer S (2007b) The ecology of clutch size variation in Darwin’s small ground finch, Geospiza fuliginosa: comparison between low and highland habitats. Ibis 149:730–741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lack D (1947) Darwin’s Finches. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  32. Møller AP, Merino S, Brown CR, Robertson RJ (2001) Immune defence and host sociality: a comparative study of swallows and martins. Am Nat 158:136–145PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mönkkönen M, Forsman JT (2002) Heterospecific attraction among forest birds: a review. Ornithol Sci 1:41–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mooring MS, Hart BL (1992) Animal grouping for protection from parasites: Selfish herd and encounter-dilution effects. Behaviour 123:173–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Muth A (2007) Control of Philornis downsi, bird parasite. Report for Department of Terrestrial Invertebrates, Charles Darwin Research StationGoogle Scholar
  36. Nicolas G, Sillans D (1989) Immediate and latent effects of carbon dioxide on insects. Ann Rev Entomol 34:97–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. O’Donnell S (1997) How parasites can promote the expression of social behaviour in their hosts. Proc R Soc Lond B 264:689–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Poulin R (1991) Group-living and infestation by ectoparasites in passerines. Condor 93:418–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Poulin R (1999) Parasitism and shoal size in juvenile sticklebacks: Conflicting selection pressures from different ectoparasites? Ethology 105:959–968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Poulin R, Fitzgerald GJ (1989) Shoaling as an anti-ectoparasite mechanism in juvenile sticklebacks (Gasterosteus spp.). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 24:251–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Poulin R, George-Nascimento M (2007) The scaling of total parasite biomass with host body mass. Int J Parasitol 37:359–364PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Raouf SA, Smith LC, Brown MB, Wingfield JC, Brown CR (2006) Glucocorticoid hormone levels increase with group size and parasite load in cliff swallows. Anim Behav 71:39–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Remeš V, Krist M (2005) Nest design and the abundance of parasitic Protocalliphora blow flies in two hole-nesting passerines. Écoscience 12:549–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Richardson DS, Bolen GM (1999) A nesting association between semi-colonial Bullock’s orioles and yellow-billed magpies: evidence for the predator protection hypothesis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 46:373–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Robertson BA, Hutto RL (2006) A framework for understanding ecological traps and an evaluation of existing evidence. Ecology 87:1075–1085PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Roulin A (1999) Fecundity of Carnus hemapterus (Diptera), an ectoparasite of juvenile barn owls Tyto alba. Alauda 67:205–212Google Scholar
  47. Silva JD, MacDonald DW, Evans PGH (1994) Net costs of group living in a solitary forager, the Eurasian badger (Meles meles). Behav Ecol 5:151–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Soler JJ, Martin-Vivaldi M, Haussy C, Møller AP (2007) Intra- and interspecific relationships between nest size and immunity. Behav Ecol 18:781–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sorci G, de Fraipont M, Clobert J (1997) Host density and ectoparasite avoidance in the common lizard (Lacerta vivipara). Oecologia 111:183–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stamps JA (1988) Conspecific attraction and aggregation in territorial species. Am Nat 131:329–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tella JL (2002) The evolutionary transition to coloniality promotes higher blood parasitism in birds. J Evol Biol 15:32–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tinbergen N (1964) On aims and methods of ethology. Zeitschrift für Tierpsycholie 20:410–433Google Scholar
  53. Tripet F, Christe P, Møller AP (2002) The importance of host spatial distribution for parasite specialization and speciation: a comparative study of bird fleas (Siphonaptera: Ceratophyllidae). J Anim Ecol 71:735–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Varela SAM, Danchin E, Wagner RH (2007) Does predation select for or against avian coloniality? A comparative analysis. J Evol Biol 20:1490–1503PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wagner RH (1997) Hidden leks: sexual selection and the clustering of avian territories. In: Parker PG, Burley N (eds) Avian reproductive tactics: female and male perspectives. Ornithol Monog 49:123–145Google Scholar
  56. Whiteman NK, Parker PG (2004) Effects of host sociality on ectoparasite population biology. J Parasitol 90:939–947PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Whitworth TL (1976) Host and habitat preferences, life history, pathogenicity and population regulation in species of Protocalliphora Hough (Diptera: Calliphoridae). PhD dissertation, Utah State University, Logan, UTGoogle Scholar
  58. Wiedenfeld DA, Jiménez UGA, Fessl B, Kleindorfer S, Valarezo JC (2007) Distribution of the introduced parasitic fly Philornis downsi (Diptera, Muscidae) in the Galápagos Islands. Pac Conservat Biol 13:14–19Google Scholar
  59. Wieslo WT (1984) Gregarious nesting of a digger wasp as a “selfish herd” response to a parasitic fly (Hymenoptera: Sphecidae; Diptera: Sacrophagidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 14:157–160Google Scholar
  60. Wikelski M, Foufopoulos J, Vargas H, Snell H (2004) Galápagos birds and diseases: invasive pathogens as threats for island species. Ecol Soc 9 (1), article 5. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss1/art5
  61. Williams GC (1966) Adaptation and natural selection. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  62. Wilson K, Bjørnstad ON, Dobson AP, Merler G, Poglayen G, Randolph SE, Read AF, Skorping A (2002) Heterogeneities in macroparasite infections: patterns and processes. In: Hudson PJ, Rizzoli A, Grenfell BT, Heesterbeek H, Dobson AP (eds) The ecology of wildlife diseases. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1–48Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Flinders UniversityAdelaideAustralia
  2. 2.School of Biological SciencesFlinders UniversityAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations