Advertisement

Parasite infection reduces predation risk by dragonfly larvae in crustacean prey

  • Olwyn C. FriesenEmail author
  • Sarah Goellner
  • Robert Poulin
  • Clément Lagrue
Primary Research Paper
  • 18 Downloads

Abstract

Parasites can modify the phenotype of their hosts, altering host vulnerability to predation. Trophically-transmitted parasites often use host manipulation to increase their probability of transmission to the next host or reduce their chances of being consumed by the wrong species. However, phenotypic changes may actually increase the host’s vulnerability to other predators that are ‘dead-ends’ for the parasite, reducing parasite fitness while potentially impacting host populations. The isopod Austridotea annectens serves as intermediate host to Maritrema poulini (trematode) and display behavioural changes when infected that may increase parasite transmission. We tested the role of parasite infection on predation risk of isopods by a dragonfly nymph, a ‘dead-end’ parasite host. Size-matched isopod pairs were exposed to nymphs and observed until one was captured; subsequently isopod parasite abundance was determined. Isopods with lower parasite abundance were significantly more likely to be caught. Several mechanisms may explain this; behavioural modification by the parasites may be altering isopod behaviour to avoid predation by dead-end hosts, or, alternatively, increased activity may allow heavily infected isopods to avoid predation by sit and wait predators. Assessing the effects of parasites on their host’s ability to avoid predation is crucial in understanding how parasites may affect ecosystem dynamics and structure.

Keywords

Predation Predator–prey interactions Parasite-mediation Dragonfly Isopods 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Laboratory assistance was provided by T. Dann. Special thanks to B. Ruehle, C. Selbach, and R. Grunberg for comments and advice on earlier drafts of this manuscript. Financial support for this project was provided by the Department of Zoology, University of Otago. SG was supported by the Promos scholarship from the German Exchange Program (Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst, DAAD).

Funding

Financial support for this project was provided by the Department of Zoology, University of Otago. SG was supported by the Promos scholarship from the German Exchange Program (Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst, DAAD).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research involving animal rights

All applicable institutional and national guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.

References

  1. Barber, I., F. A. Huntingford & D. W. T. Crompton, 1995. The effect of hunger and cestode parasitism on the shoaling decisions of small freshwater fish. Journal of Fish Biology 47: 524–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cézilly, F. & M. J. Perrot-Minnot, 2005. Studying adaptive changes in the behaviour of infected hosts: A long and winding road. Behavioural Processes 68: 223–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cézilly, F., F. Thomas, V. Médoc & M. J. Perrot-Minnot, 2010. Host-manipulation by parasites with complex life cycles: adaptive or not? Trends in Parasitology 26: 311–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chubb, J. C., M. A. Ball & G. A. Parker, 2010. Living in intermediate hosts: evolutionary adaptations in larval helminths. Trends in Parasitology 26: 93–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Curtis, L. A., 1987. Vertical distribution of an estuarine snail altered by a parasite. Science 235: 1509–1511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Faul, F., E. Erdfelder, A. Buchner & A.-G. Lang, 2009. Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods 41: 1149–1160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Faul, F., E. Erdfelder, A.-G. Lang & A. Buchner, 2007. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods 39: 175–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Friesen, O. C., R. Poulin & C. Lagrue, 2017. Differential impacts of shared parasites on fitness components among competing hosts. Ecology and Evolution 7: 4682–4693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Friesen, O. C., R. Poulin & C. Lagrue, 2018. Parasite-medaited microhabitat segregation between congeneric hosts. Biology Letters 14: 20170671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hatcher, M. J., & A. M. Dunn, 2011. Parasites and competitors. Parasites in Ecological Communities: from interactions to ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  11. Hudson, P. J. & J. V. Greenman, 1998. Competition mediated by parasites: biological and theoretical progress. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 13: 387–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kattel, G. R. & G. P. Closs, 2007. Spatial and temporal variation in the fish community of a South Island, New Zealand coastal lake. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 41: 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Klein, S. L., 2005. Parasite manipulation of host behavior: mechanisms, ecology, and future directions. Behavioural Processes 68: 219–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kunz, A. K. & O. J. Pung, 2004. Effects of Microphallus turgidus (Trematoda: Microphallidae) on the predation, behavior, and swimming stamina of the grass shrimp Palaemonetes pugio. Journal of Parasitology 90: 441–445.Google Scholar
  15. Lagrue, C. & R. Poulin, 2015. Local diversity reduces infection risk across multiple freshwater host-parasite associations. Freshwater Biology 60: 2445–2454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lagrue, C., N. Kaldonski, M. J. Perrot-Minnot, S. Motreuil & L. Bollache, 2007. Modification of hosts’ behavior by a parasite: field evidence for adaptive manipulation. Ecology 88: 2839–2847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lagrue, C., D. W. Kelly, A. Hicks & R. Poulin, 2011. Factors influencing infection patterns of trophically transmitted parasites among a fish community: host diet, host-parasite compatibility or both? Journal of Fish Biology 79: 466–485.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Lagrue, C., A. Güvenatam & L. Bollache, 2013. Manipulative parasites may not alter intermediate host distribution but still enhance their transmission: field evidence for increased vulnerability to definitive hosts and non-host predator avoidance. Parasitology 140: 258–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lagrue, C., R. Poulin & J. E. Cohen, 2015. Parasitism alters three power laws of scaling in a metazoan community: Taylor’s law, density-mass allometry, and variance-mass allometry. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112: 1791–1796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lagrue, C., K. Heaphy, B. Presswell & R. Poulin, 2016. Strong association between parasitism and phenotypic variation in a supralittoral amphipod. Marine Ecology Progress Series 553: 111–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Levri, E. P., 1998. Perceived predation risk, parasitism, and the foraging behavior of a freshwater snail (Potamopyrgus antipodarum). Canadian Journal of Zoology 76: 1878–1884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Médoc, V. & J. N. Beisel, 2008. An acanthocephalan parasite boosts the escape performance of its intermediate host facing non-host predators. Parasitology 135: 977–984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Médoc, V., L. Bollache & J. N. Beisel, 2006. Host manipulation of a freshwater crustacean (Gammarus roeseli) by an acanthocephalan parasite (Polymorphus minutus) in a biological invasion context. International Journal for Parasitology 36: 1351–1358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Médoc, V., T. Rigaud, L. Bollache & J. N. Beisel, 2009. A manipulative parasite increasing an antipredator response decreases its vulnerability to a nonhost predator. Animal Behaviour 77: 1235–1241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mikheev, V. N., A. F. Pasternak, J. Taskinen & E. T. Valtonen, 2010. Parasite-induced aggression and impaired contest ability in a fish host. Parasites & Vectors 3: 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moore, J., 2002. Parasites and the behavior of animals. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  27. Mouritsen, K. N. & R. Poulin, 2003. Parasite-induced trophic facilitation exploited by a non-host predator: a manipulator’s nightmare. International Journal for Parasitology 33: 1043–1050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nakagawa, S. & H. Schielzeth, 2013. A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 4: 133–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Needham, J. G., 1897. The digestive epithelium of dragonfly nymphs. Zoological Bulletin 1: 103–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Park, T., 1948. Interspecies competition in populations of Tribolium confusum Duval and Tribolium castaneum Herbst. Ecological Monographs 18: 265–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Poulin, R., 1995. “Adaptive” changes in the behaviour of parasitized animals: A critical review. International Journal for Parasitology 25: 1371–1383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Poulin, R., 2010. Parasite Manipulation of Host Behavior. Advances in the Study of Behavior 41: 151–186.Google Scholar
  33. Poulin, R. & F. Maure, 2015. Host manipulation by parasites: a look back before moving forward. Trends in Parasitology 31: 563–570.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Presswell, B., I. Blasco-Costa & A. Kostadinova, 2014. Two new species of Maritrema Nicoll, 1907 (Digenea: Microphallidae) from New Zealand: morphological and molecular characterisation. Parasitology Research 113: 1641–1656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Price, P. W., M. Westoby, B. Rice, P. R. Atsatt, R. S. Fritz, J. N. Thompson & K. Mobley, 1986. Parasite mediation in ecological interactions. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 17: 487–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pritchard, G., 1965. Prey capture by dragonfly larvae (Odonata; Anisoptera). Canadian Journal of Zoology 43: 271–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Raoul, F., P. Deplazes, D. Rieffel, J.-C. Lambert & P. Giraudoux, 2010. Predator dietary response to prey density variation and consequences for cestode transmission. Oecologia 164: 129–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rauque, C. A., R. A. Paterson, R. Poulin & D. M. Tompkins, 2011. Do different parasite species interact in their effects on host fitness? A case study on parasites of the amphipod Paracalliope fluviatilis. Parasitology 138: 1176–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Reisinger, L. S., I. Petersen, J. S. Hing, R. L. Davila & D. M. Lodge, 2015. Infection with a trematode parasite differentially alters competitive interactions and antipredator behaviour in native and invasive crayfish. Freshwater Biology 60: 1581–1595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Richards, S. J. & C. M. Bull, 1990. Non-visual detection of anuran tadpoles by odonate larvae. Journal of Herpetology 24: 311–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Seppälä, O. & J. Jokela, 2008. Host manipulation as a parasite transmission strategy when manipulation is exploited by non-host predators. Biology Letters 4: 663–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Seppälä, O., A. Karvonen & E. Tellervo Valtonen, 2004. Parasite-induced change in host behaviour and susceptibility to predation in an eye fluke-fish interaction. Animal Behaviour 68: 257–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Seppälä, O., E. T. Valtonen & D. P. Benesh, 2008. Host manipulation by parasites in the world of dead-end predators: adaptation to enhance transmission? Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 275: 1611–1615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sparkes, T. C., K. A. Weil, D. T. Renwick & J. A. Talkington, 2006. Development-related effects of an acanthocephalan parasite on pairing success of its intermediate host. Animal Behaviour 71: 439–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stigge, H. A. & M. G. Bolek, 2015. The altercation of life history traits and increased success of Halipegus eccentricus through the use of a paratenic host: A comparative study. Journal of Parasitology 101: 658–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Thomas, F., S. Adamo & J. Moore, 2005. Parasitic manipulation: where are we and where should we go? Behavioural Processes 68: 185–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tompkins, D. M. & M. Begon, 1999. Parasites can regulate wildlife populations. Parasitology Today 15: 311–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wilhelm, F. M., G. P. Closs & C. W. Burns, 2007. Seasonal diet and amphipod size selection of juvenile common bully, Gobiomorphus cotidianus, in a coastal New Zealand lake. Hydrobiologia 586: 303–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wilhelm, F. M., J. Hamann & C. W. Burns, 2002. Mysid predation on amphipods and Daphnia in a shallow coastal lake: prey selection and effects of macrophytes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 59: 1901–1907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Winterbourn, M. J. & S. R. Pohe, 2013. Life histories of four dragonfly species (Odonata: Anisoptera) in northern New Zealand. New Zealand Entomologist 36: 8–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wolf, M. C., A. L. Martin, J. L. Simon, J. L. Bergner & P. A. Moore, 2009. Chemosensory signals in stream habitats: implications for ecological interactions. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 28: 560–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ZoologyUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand
  2. 2.Department of Infectious DiseasesUniversity of HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany
  3. 3.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations