Ecological Research

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 235–240 | Cite as

Parasitism and breeding system variation in North American populations of Daphnia pulex

  • Stuart C. Killick
  • Darren J. Obbard
  • Stuart A. West
  • Tom J. Little
Original Article

Abstract

The Red Queen hypothesis proposes that frequency-dependent selection by parasites may be responsible for the evolutionary maintenance of sexual reproduction. We sought to determine whether parasites could be responsible for variation in the occurrence of sexual reproduction in 21 populations of Daphnia pulex (Crustacea; Cladocera) that previous studies have shown to consist of either cyclical parthenogens, obligate parthenogens, or a mixture of both. We measured parasite prevalence over a four-week period (which essentially encompasses an entire season for the temporary snow-melt habitats we sampled) and regressed three different measures of sexuality against mean levels of parasite prevalence. Levels of parasitism were low and we found no relationship between levels of sexuality and mean parasite prevalence. Genetic variation with infection level was detected in 2 of the 21 populations, with several different clones showing signs of overparasitism or underparasitism. Overall, however, our results suggest that parasites are not a major source of selection in these populations and it thus seems unlikely they are responsible for maintaining breeding system variation across the study region.

Keywords

Geographical parthenogenesis Red Queen hypothesis Evolution of sex Parthenogenesis Natural selection Infection 

References

  1. Bell G (1982) The masterpiece of nature: the evolution and genetics of sexuality. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  2. Ben-Ami F, Heller J (2005) Spatial and temporal patterns of parthenogenesis and parasitism in the freshwater snail Melanoides tuberculata. J Evol Biol 18:138–146PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown SG, Kwan S, Shero S (1995) The parasitic theory of sexual reproduction: parasitism in unisexual and bisexual geckos. Proc R Soc Lond B 260:317–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Camacho JPM, Bakkali M, Corral JM, Cabrero J, Lopez-Leon MD, Aranda I, Martin-Alganza A, Perfectti F (2002) Host recombination is dependent on the degree of parasitism. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:2173–2177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Crease TJ, Stanton DJ, Hebert PDN (1989) Polyphyletic origins of asexuality in Daphnia pulex. II. Mitochondrial-DNA variation. Evolution 43:1016–1026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Duncan A, Little TJ (2007) Parasite-driven genetic change in a natural population of Daphnia. Evolution (in press)Google Scholar
  7. Duncan A, Mitchell SE, Little TJ (2006) Parasite-mediated selection and the role of sex and diapause in Daphnia. J Evolut Biol 19:1183–1189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dybdahl MF, Lively CM (1998) Host–parasite coevolution: evidence for rare advantage and time-lagged selection in a natural population. Evolution 52:1057–1066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ebert D (1995) The ecological interactions between a microsporidian parasite and its host Daphnia magna. J Anim Ecol 64:361–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Green J (1974) Parasites and epibionts of Cladocera. Trans Zool Soc Lond 32:417–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hakoyama H, Nishimura T, Matsubara N, Iguchi K (2001) Difference in parasite load and nonspecific immune reaction between sexual and gynogenetic forms of Carassius auratus. Biol J Linn Soc 72:401–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hamilton WD, Axelrod R, Tanese R (1990) Sexual reproduction as an adaptation to resist parasites (A Review). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 87:3566–3573PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hanley KA, Fisher RN, Case TJ (1995) Lower mite infestations in an asexual gecko compared with its sexual ancestor. Evolution 49:418–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hebert PDN (1974) Enzyme variability in natural populations of Daphnia magna. II. Genotypic frequencies in permanent populations. Genetics 77:323–334PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Hebert PDN (1978) The population biology of Daphnia (Crustacea, Daphnidae). Biol Rev 53:387–426Google Scholar
  16. Hebert PDN (1981) Obligate asexuality in Daphnia. Am Nat 117:784–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hebert PDN, Beaton MJ (1993) Methodologies for allozyme analysis using cellulose acetate electrophoresis. Helena Laboratories, BeaumontGoogle Scholar
  18. Hebert PDN, Crease T (1983) Clonal diversity in populations of Daphnia pulex reproducing by obligate parthenogenesis. Heredity 51:353–369Google Scholar
  19. Hebert PDN, Finston TL (2001) Macrogeographic patterns of breeding system diversity in the Daphnia pulex group from the United States and Mexico. Heredity 87:153–161PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hebert PDN, Ward RD, Weider LJ (1988) Clonal-diversity patterns and breeding-system variation in Daphnia pulex, an asexual–sexual complex. Evolution 42:147–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hebert PDN, Beaton MJ, Schwartz SS, Stanton DJ (1989) Polyphyletic origins of asexuality in Daphnia pulex. I. Breeding system variation and levels of clonal diversity. Evolution 43:1004–1015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hebert PDN, Schwartz SS, Ward RD, Finston TL (1993) Macrogeographic patterns of breeding system diversity. I. Breeding systems of Canadian populations. Heredity 70:148–161Google Scholar
  23. Heller J, Farstey V (1990) Sexual and parthenogenetic populations of the freshwater snail Melanoides tuberculata in Israel. Isr J Zool 37:75–87Google Scholar
  24. Innes DJ, Hebert PDN (1988) The origin and genetic basis of obligate parthenogenesis in Daphnia pulex. Evolution 42:1024–1035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Innes DJ, Schwartz SS, Hebert PDN (1986) Genotypic diversity and variation in mode of reproduction among populations in the Daphnia pulex group. Heredity 57:345–355Google Scholar
  26. Innes DJ, Fox CJ, Winsor GL (2000) Avoiding the cost of males in obligately asexual Daphnia pulex (Leydig). Proc R Soc Lond B 267:991–997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jokela J, Lively CM (1995) Parasites, sex, and early reproduction in a mixed population of freshwater snails. Evolution 49:1268–1271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jokela J, Lively CM, Dybdahl MF, Fox JA (2003) Genetic variation in sexual and clonal lineages of a freshwater snail. Biol J Linn Soc 79:165–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kelley SE (1994) Viral pathogens and the advantage of sex in the perennial grass Anthoxanthum odoratum. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 346:295–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kondrashov AS (1993) Classification of hypotheses on the advantage of amphimixis. J Hered 84:372–387PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Kumpulainen T, Grapputo A, Mappes J (2004) Parasites and sexual reproduction in Psychid moths. Evolution 58:1511–1520PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Little TJ (1999) Parasite mediated selection in Daphnia. PhD Dissertation, Zoologisches Institut, University of Basel, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  33. Little TJ, Ebert D (1999) Associations between parasitism and host genotype in natural populations of Daphnia (Crustacea; Cladocera). J Anim Ecol 68:134–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lively CM (1987) Evidence from a New Zealand snail for the maintenance of sex by parasitism. Nature 328:519–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lively CM (2001) Trematode infection and the distribution and dynamics of parthenogenetic snail populations. Parasitology 123:S19–S26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lively CM, Jokela J (2002) Temporal and spatial distributions of parasite and sex in a freshwater snail. Evol Ecol Res 4:219–226Google Scholar
  37. Lively CM, Craddock C, Vrijenhoek RC (1990) Red Queen hypothesis supported by parasitism in sexual and clonal fish. Nature 344:864–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mangin KL, Lipsitch M, Ebert D (1995) Virulence and transmission modes of two microsporidia in Daphnia magna. Parasitology 111:133–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Maynard Smith J (1978) The evolution of sex. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  40. Michiels NK, Beukeboom LW, Pongratz N, Zeitlinger J (2001) Parthenogenetic flatworms have more symbionts than their coexisting, sexual conspecifics, but does this support the Red Queen? J Evol Biol 14:110–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Moritz C, McCallum H, Donnellan S, Roberts JD (1991) Parasite loads in parthenogenetic and sexual lizards (Heteronotia binoei): support for the Red Queen hypothesis. Proc R Soc Lond B 244:145–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schwartz SS, Cameron GN (1993) How do parasites cost their hosts—preliminary answers from trematodes and Daphnia obtuse. Limnol Oceanogr 38:602–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry, 3rd edn. W.H. Freeman and Co., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  44. Stirnadel HA, Ebert D (1997) Prevalence, host specificity, and impact on host fecundity of microparasites and epibionts in three sympatric Daphnia species. J Anim Ecol 66:212–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vernon JG, Okamura B, Jones CS, Noble LR (1996) Temporal patterns of clonality and parasitism in a population of freshwater bryozoans. Proc R Soc Lond B 263:1313–1318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. West SA, Lively CM, Read AF (1999) A pluralist approach to sex and recombination. J Evol Biol 12:1003–1012CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Ecological Society of Japan 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stuart C. Killick
    • 1
  • Darren J. Obbard
    • 1
  • Stuart A. West
    • 1
  • Tom J. Little
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Evolutionary Biology, School of Biological SciencesUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations