Deterioration of basic components of the anti-predator behavior in fish harboring eye fluke larvae

Abstract

Parasites can manipulate their host’s behavior in order to increase their own fitness. When a parasite is trophically transmitted, it can alter the host’s anti-predatory behavior to make it more susceptible to the next host in the lifecycle. We experimentally infected young-of-the-year rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss, with realistic, naturally occurring numbers of the common eye fluke, Diplostomum pseudospathaceum, to investigate whether these parasites alter fish activity, depth preference, and activity resumption latency following a simulated avian predation attack. Behavioral tests for the first two common anti-predatory behavioral traits, which are closely related to the host’s conspicuousness to the fish-eating bird (the final host of the parasite), were performed after the parasites had attained maturity (>4 weeks post-infection). In activity latency, we also studied potential conflict between mature and immature parasites. The fish harboring mature metacercariae increased their activity, preferred to stay closer to the water surface, and spent less time immobile after the simulated avian predator attack compared to the control fish. We did not find evidence of intraspecific conflict between mature and immature eye fluke metacercariae. Interestingly, these behavioral changes did not correlate with infection intensity. Our results suggest that the D. pseudospathaceum metacercariae can change rainbow trout’s behavior predisposing them to avian predation. Since eye flukes are common freshwater fish parasites, the resulting behavioral changes caused by these parasites likely play an important role in freshwater food webs.

Significance statement

By sabotaging the intermediate host’s anti-predatory behavioral traits, a parasite can predispose the host to predation by the final host. We experimentally studied whether the parasitic eye fluke, Diplostomum pseudospathaceum, alters rainbow trout’s anti-predatory behavior. Infected fish were more active, preferred upper water layers, and recovered quickly from the simulated avian predator attack compared to control fish. Our results suggest that the eye fluke changes its host’s behavior in order to make it more vulnerable to the final host. Most importantly, the observed behavioral changes arose, when the infection intensity was similar to rates found in natural conditions. This implies that, in natural conditions, eye flukes can substantially alter host anti-predatory defenses and affect predator–prey interactions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Bethel WM, Holmes JC (1973) Altered evasive behavior and responses to light in amphipods harboring acanthocephalan cystacanths. J Parasitol 59:945–956

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Brown GE, Dreier VM (2002) Predator inspections behavior and attack cone avoidance in a characin fish: the effects of predator diet and prey experience. Anim Behav 63:1175–1181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Cézilly F, Favrat A, Perrot-Minnot M-J (2013) Multidimensionality in parasite-induced phenotypic alterations: ultimate versus proximate aspects. J Exp Biol 216:27–35

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Cézilly F, Perrot-Minnot M-J, Rigaud T (2014) Cooperation and conflict in host manipulation: interactions among macro-parasites and micro-organisms. Front Microbiol 5:248

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Coats J, Poulin R, Nakagawa S (2010) The consequences of parasitic infections for host behavioural correlations and repeatability. Behaviour 147:367–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Crowden A, Broom D (1980) Effects of eyefluke, Diplostomum spathaceum, on the behaviour of dace (Leuciscus leuciscus). Anim Behav 28:287–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Curtis LA (1987) Vertical distribution of an estuarine snail altered by a parasite. Science 235:1509–1511

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dawkins R (1982) The extended phenotype. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  9. Désilets HD, Locke SA, McLaughlin JD, Marcogliese DJ (2013) Community structure of Diplostomum spp. (Digenea: Diplostomidae) in eyes of fish: main determinants and potential interspecific interactions. Int J Parasitol 43:929–939

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Dianne L, Perrot-Minnot M-J, Bauer A, Gaillard M, Léger E, Rigaud T (2011) Protection first then facilitation: a manipulative parasite modulates the vulnerability to predation of its intermediate host according to its own developmental stage. Evolution 65:2692–2698

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Engström-Öst J, Lehtiniemi M (2004) Threat-sensitive predator avoidance by pike larvae. J Fish Biol 65:251–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Evans AF, Hostetter NJ, Roby DD, Collis K, Lyons DE, Sandford BP, Ledgerwood RD, Sebring S (2012) Systemwide evaluation of avian predation on juvenile salmonids from the Columbia River based on recoveries of passive integrated transponder tags. T Am Fish Soc 141:975–989

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Franceschi N, Cornet S, Bollache L, Dechaume-Moncharmont FX, Bauer A, Motreuil S, Rigaud T (2010) Variation between populations and local adaptation in acanthocephalan-induced parasite manipulation. Evolution 64:2417–2430

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Fredensborg BL, Longoria AN (2012) Increased surfacing behavior in longnose killifish infected by brain-encysting trematode. J Parasitol 98:899–903

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Goel MK, Khanna P, Kishore J (2010) Understanding survival analysis: Kaplan-Meier estimate. Int J Ayurveda Res 1:274

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Gopko MV, Mikheev VN, Taskinen J (2015) Changes in host behaviour caused by immature larvae of the eye fluke: evidence supporting the predation suppression hypothesis. Behavioral Ecol Sociobiol 69:1723–1730

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hafer N, Milinski M (2015) When parasites disagree: evidence for parasite-induced sabotage of host manipulation. Evolution 69:611–620

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Hafer N, Milinski M (2016) Inter- and intraspecific conflicts between parasites over host manipulation. Proc R Soc B 283:20152870

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Hammerschmidt K, Koch K, Milinski M, Chubb JC, Parker GA (2009) When to go: optimization of host switching in parasites with complex life cycles. Evolution 63:1976–1986

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hemmi JM, Pfeil A (2010) A multi-stage anti-predator response increases information on predation risk. J Exp Biol 213:1484–1489

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Höglund J, Thuvander A (1990) Indications of nonspecific protective mechanisms in rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss with diplostomosis. Dis Aquat Org 8:91–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. James CT, Noyes KJ, Stumbo AD, Wisenden BD, Goater CP (2008) Cost of exposure to trematode cercariae and learned recognition and avoidance of parasitism risk by fathead minnows. J Fish Biol 73:2238–2248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Karvonen A, Seppälä O, Valtonen ET (2004) Eye fluke induced cataract formation in fish: quantitative analysis using an ophthalmological microscope. Parasitology 129:473–478

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Karvonen A, Paukku S, Seppälä O, Valtonen ET (2005) Resistance against eye flukes: naïve versus previously infected fish. Parasitol Res 95:55–59

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kekäläinen J, Lai Y-T, Vainikka A, Sirkka I, Kortet R (2014) Do brain parasites alter host personality?—experimental study in minnows. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 68:197–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kortet R, Rantala MJ, Hedrick A (2007) Boldness in anti-predator behavior and immune defence in field crickets. Evol Ecol Res 9:185–197

    Google Scholar 

  27. Krause J, Godin J-GJ (1995) Predator preferences for attacking particular prey group sizes: consequences for predator hunting success and prey predation risk. Anim Behav 50:465–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Krause J, Godin J-GJ, Rubenstein DI (1998) Group choice as a function of group size difference and assessment time in fish: the influence of species vulnerability to predation. Ethology 104:68–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lafferty KD, Morris AK (1996) Altered behaviour of parasitized killifish increases susceptibility to predation by bird final hosts. Ecology 77:1390–1397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Lafferty KD, Shaw JC (2013) Comparing mechanisms of host manipulation across host and parasite taxa. J Exp Biol 216:56–66

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Langerhans RB (2006) Evolutionary consequences of predation: avoidance, escape, reproduction, and diversification. In: Elewa AMT (ed) Predation in organisms: a distinct phenomenon. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, pp 177–220

    Google Scholar 

  32. Lima SL, Dill LM (1990) Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Can J Zool 68:619–640

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Louhi KR, Karvonen A, Rellstab C, Jokela J (2010) Is the population genetic structure of complex life cycle parasites determined by the geographic range of the most motile host? Infect Genet Evol 10:1271–1277

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Marcogliese DJ, Dumont P, Gendron AD, Mailhot Y, Bergeron E, McLaughlin JD (2001) Spatial and temporal variation in abundance of Diplostomum spp. in walleye (Stizostedion vitreum) and white suckers (Catostomus commersoni) from the St. Lawrence River. Can J Zool 79:355–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Mikheev V, Pasternak A, Taskinen J, Valtonen ET (2010) Parasite-induced aggression and impaired contest ability in a fish host. Parasite Vector 3:17

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Miura O, Chiba S (2007) Effects of trematode double infection on the shell size and distribution of snail hosts. Parasitol Int 56:19–22

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Miura O, Kuris AM, Torchin ME, Hechinger RF, Chiba S (2006) Parasites alter host phenotype and may create a new ecological niche for snail hosts. Proc R Soc Lond B 273:1323–1328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Moore J (2013) An overview of parasite-induced behavioral alterations—and some lessons from bats. J Exp Biol 216:11–17

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Northcote TG (1957) Common diseases and parasites of freshwater fishes in British Columbia. Management publication no. 6 of the British Columbia game commission

  40. Owen SF, Barber I, Hart PJB (1993) Low level infection by eye fluke, Diplostomum spp., affects the vision of three-spined sticklebacks, Gasterosteus aculeatus. J Fish Biol 42:803–806

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Parker GA, Ball MA, Chubb JC, Hammerschmidt K, Milinski M (2009) When should a trophically transmitted parasite manipulate its host? Evolution 63:448–458

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Poulin R (1994) The evolution of parasite manipulation of host behaviour: a theoretical analysis. Parasitology 109:S109–S118

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Poulin R (2010) Parasite manipulation of host behaviour: an update and frequently asked questions. Adv Stud Behav 41:151–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Poulin R (2013) Parasite manipulation of host personality and behavioural syndromes. J Exp Biol 216:18–26

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Poulin R, Fredensborg BL, Hansen E, Leung TLF (2005) The true cost of host manipulation by parasites. Behav Process 68:241–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Pulkkinen K, Pasternak AF, Hasu T, Valtonen ET (2000) Effect of Triaenophorus crassus (Cestoda) infection on behaviour and susceptibility to predation of the first intermediate host Cyclops strenuus (Copepoda). J Parasitol 86:664–670

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. R Core Team (2015) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna http://www.R-project.org/

    Google Scholar 

  48. Reebs SG (2008) How fishes try to avoid predators, www.howfishbehave.ca/pdf/How%20fish%20try%20to%20avoid%20predators.pdf

  49. Rellstab C, Louhi KR, Karvonen A, Jokela J (2011) Analysis of trematode parasite communities in fish eye lenses by pyrosequencing of naturally pooled DNA. Infect Genet Evol 11:1276–1286

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Rusticus S, Lovato CY (2014) Impact of sample size and variability on the power and type I error rates of equivalence test: a simulation study. PARE 11:1–10

    Google Scholar 

  51. Schielzeth H, Nakagawa S (2013) Nested by design: model fitting and interpretation in a mixed model era. Method Ecol Evol 4:14–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Selbach C, Soldánová M, Georgieva S, Kostadinova A, Sures B (2015) Integrative taxonomic approach to the cryptic diversity of Diplostomum spp. in lymnaeid snails from Europe with a focus on the ‘Diplostomum mergi’ species complex. Parasit Vectors 8:300. doi:10.1186/s13071-015-0904-4

  53. Seppälä O, Karvonen A, Valtonen ET (2004) Parasite-induced change in host behaviour and susceptibility to predation in an eye fluke–fish interaction. Anim Behav 68:257–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Seppälä O, Karvonen A, Valtonen ET (2005a) Impaired crypsis of fish infected with a trophically transmitted parasite. Anim Behav 70:895–900

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Seppälä O, Karvonen A, Valtonen ET (2005b) Manipulation of fish host by eye flukes in relation to cataract formation and parasite infectivity. Anim Behav 70:889–894

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Seppälä O, Karvonen A, Valtonen ET (2006) Susceptibility of eye fluke-infected fish to predation by bird hosts. Parasitology 132:575–579

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Seppälä O, Karvonen A, Valtonen ET (2008) Shoaling behavior of fish under parasitism and predation risk. Anim Behav 75:145–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Sogard SM, Olla BL (1996) Food deprivation affects vertical distribution and activity of a marine fish in a thermal gradient: potential energy-conserving mechanisms. Mar Ecol-Prog Ser 133:43–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Sokolov SG (2010) Parasites of underyearling kamchatka mykiss Parasalmo mykiss mykiss (Osteichithyes: Salmonidae) in the Utkholok River (North-western Kamchatka). Parazitologiia 44:336–342 (in Russian)

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS (2001) Using multivariate statistics. Allyn and Bacon, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  61. Therneau T (2015) A Package for Survival Analysis in S, version 2.38, http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=survival

  62. Thomas F, Fauchier J, Laffery K (2002) Conflict of interest between a nematode and a trematode in an amphipod host: test of the ‘sabotage’ hypothesis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 51:296–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Thomas F, Adamo S, Moore J (2005) Parasitic manipulation: where are we and where should we go? Behav Process 68:185–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Urdal K, Tierney JF, Jakobsen PJ (1995) The tapeworm Schistocephalus solidus alters the activity and response, but not the predation susceptibility of infected copepods. J Parasitol 81:330–333

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Valtonen ET, Gibson DI (1997) Aspects of the biology of diplostomid metacercarial (Digenea) populations occurring in fishes in different localities of northern Finland. Ann Zool Fenn 34:47–59

    Google Scholar 

  66. Voellmy IK, Purser J, Simpson SD, Radford AN (2014) Increased noise levels have different impacts on the anti-predator behaviour of two sympatric fish species. PLoS One 9:e102946

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Vyas A, Kim SK, Sapolsky RM (2007) The effects of Toxoplasma infection on rodent behavior are dependent on dose of the stimulus. Neuroscience 148:342–348

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Webster JP (1994) The effect of Toxoplasma gondii and other parasites on activity levels in wild and hybrid Rattus norvegicus. Parasitology 109:583–589

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Webster JP (2007) The effect of Toxoplasma gondii on animal behavior: playing cat and mouse. Schizophrenia Bull 33:752–756

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Weinersmith KL, Warinner CB, Tan V, Harris DJ, Mora AB, Kuris AM, Lafferty KD, Hechinger RF (2014) A lack of crowding? Body size does not decrease with density for two behavior-manipulating parasites. Integr Comp Biol 54:184–192

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Weinreich F, Benesh DP, Milinski M (2013) Suppression of predation on the intermediate host by two trophically-transmitted parasites when uninfective. Parasitology 140:129–135

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Wickham H (2009) ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer-Verlag, New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We cordially thank two anonymous referees for their constructive comments and suggestions. We are also very grateful to Prof. Roger Jones and Punidan Jeyasingh for reading and editing a draft of this manuscript.

This work was supported by the Academy of Finland mobility grant 279220/2014 to JT, the CIMO Fellowship grant TM-14-9506 to JT, and the RFBR grant 14-04-00090a to VM.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mikhail Gopko.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.

The experiments were conducted with the permission of the Centre for Economic Development, Transport, and Environment of South Finland (license number ESAVI/6759/04.10.03/2011).

Additional information

Communicated by C. M. Garcia

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOC 34 kb)

ESM 2

(XLSX 18 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gopko, M., Mikheev, V.N. & Taskinen, J. Deterioration of basic components of the anti-predator behavior in fish harboring eye fluke larvae. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 71, 68 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-017-2300-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Parasitic manipulations
  • Anti-predatory behavior
  • Experimental infections
  • Diplostomum pseudospathaceum
  • Host–parasite interaction