Skip to main content

Current parasite resistance trades off with future defenses and flight performance

Abstract

Many animals use behavioral defenses such as grooming to avoid or mitigate the negative effects of infection by ectoparasites. Grooming can be energetically costly and may trade off with other host activities. We hypothesize that self-grooming comes at a cost and, therefore, compromises future parasite resistance and other energetically expensive activities, namely flight. We measured the rates of CO2 production (respiration is a proxy for energetic costs) in Drosophila nigrospiracula induced to groom with a non-pathogenic irritant (volcanic ash), allowing us to disentangle the cost of grooming from the cost of infection. The respiration rate of flies induced to groom was significantly higher compared to flies at rest. Results show that flies that spent time grooming, induced by an irritant, had higher average infection intensities upon subsequent exposure to the ectoparasitic mite Macrocheles subbadius. Additionally, flies induced to groom with an irritant suffered a ~ 30% reduction in flight performance compared to flies previously at rest, suggesting reduced ability to escape infested habitats. Lastly, we compared the behavioral response of flies to ectoparasites and irritants, as flies may be specific in their response to different types of threats. Behavioral observations revealed that flies exposed to an irritant increased self-grooming behavior and decreased movement (potentially suggesting reduced escape behavior), whereas flies exposed to mites exhibited increased ambulatory movement as well as increased grooming behavior. Overall, time spent grooming made flies more vulnerable to future infection and decreased flight endurance, a metric of dispersal capability.

Significance statement

Behavioral defenses are a major method by which animals defend themselves against ectoparasites. However, these defenses, such as rapid movement and intensive grooming, are often energetically costly. This study measures the energetic cost of grooming in Drosophila nigrospiracula and the knock-on effects on future parasite resistance and flight endurance. We measured the energetic cost of grooming using respirometry and observed that flies induced to groom with a non-pathogenic irritant were less able to defend themselves against future mite attack and had reduced flight endurance, likely due to energetic trade-offs. Our results suggest grooming reduces energy available for other energetically demanding activities. As dispersal can limit the long-term impacts of parasites, these trade-offs may indicate a broader trade-off between current and future parasite defense.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  • Auld S, Penczykowski RM, Ochs JH, Grippi DC, Hall SR, Duffy MA (2013) Variation in costs of parasite resistance among natural host populations. J Evol Biol 26:2479–2486

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barradale F, Sinha K, Lebestky T (2017) Quantification of Drosophila grooming behavior. Jove-J of Vis Exp

  • Beenakke AM (1969) Carbohydrate and fat as a fuel for insect flight. A comparative study. J Insect Physiol 15:353–361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boots M, Haraguchi Y (1999) The evolution of costly resistance in host-parasite systems. Am Nat 153:359–370

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Boroczky K, Wada-Katsumataa A, Batchelor D, Zhukovskaya M, Schal C (2013) Insects groom their antennae to enhance olfactory acuity. P Natl Acad Sci USA 110:3615–3620

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradley CA, Altizer S (2005) Parasites hinder monarch butterfly flight: implications for disease spread in migratory hosts. Ecol Lett 8:290–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell EO, Luong LT (2016) Mite choice generates sex- and size-biased infection in Drosophila hydei. Parasitology 143:787–793

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de la Flor M, Chen LJ, Manson-Bishop C, Chu TC, Zamora K, Robbins D, Gunaratne G, Roman G (2017) Drosophila increase exploration after visually detecting predators. PLoS One 12:e0180749

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eilam D (2005) Die hard: a blend of freezing and fleeing as a dynamic defense - implications for the control of defensive behavior. Neurosci and Biobehav Rev 29:1181–1191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrido M, Adler VH, Pnini M, Abramsky Z, Krasnov BR, Gutman R, Kronfeld-Schor N, Hawlena H (2016) Time budget, oxygen consumption and body mass responses to parasites in juvenile and adult wild rodents. Parasite Vector 9:120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geraldi NR, Macreadie PI (2013) Restricting prey dispersal can overestimate the importance of predation in trophic cascades. PLoS One 8:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giorgi MS, Arlettaz R, Christe P, Vogel P (2001) The energetic grooming costs imposed by a parasitic mite (Spinturnix myoti) upon its bat host (Myotis myotis). P Roy Soc B-Biol Sci 268:2071–2075

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawlena H, Bashary D, Abramsky Z, Krasnov BR (2007) Benefits, costs and constraints of anti-parasitic grooming in adult and juvenile rodents. Ethology 113:394–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hicks O, Burthe SJ, Daunt F, Newell M, Butler A, Ito M, Sato K, Green JA (2018) The energetic cost of parasitism in a wild population. P Roy Soc B-Biol Sci 285:8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horn CJ, Luong LT (2018) Proximity to parasites reduces host fitness independent of infection in a Drosophila-Macrocheles system. Parasitology 145:1564–1569 1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horn CJ, Mierzejewski MK, Luong LT (2018) Host respiration rate and injury-derived cues drive host preference by an ectoparasite of fruit flies. Physiol Biochem Zool 91:896–903

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James WR, McClintock JB (2017) Anti-predator responses of amphipods are more effective in the presence of conspecific chemical cues. Hydrobiologia 797:277–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston JS, Heed WB (1976) Dispersal of desert-adapted Drosophila: the Saguaro-breeding D. nigrospiracula. Am Nat 110:629–651

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klemme I, Karvonen A (2017) Vertebrate defense against parasites: interactions between avoidance, resistance, and tolerance. Ecol Evol 7:561–571

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lefevre T, de Roode JC, Kacsoh BZ, Schlenke TA (2012) Defence strategies against a parasitoid wasp in Drosophila: fight or flight? Biol Lett 8:230–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li JF, Zhang W, Guo ZH, Wu S, Jan LY, Jan YN (2016) A defensive kicking behavior in response to mechanical stimuli mediated by Drosophila wing margin bristles. J Neurosci 36:11275–11282

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lighton JRB (2008) Measuring metabolic rates: a manual for scientists. Oxford University Press, New York, USA

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Luong LT, Brophy T, Stolz E, Chan SJ (2017a) State-dependent parasitism by a facultative parasite of fruit flies. Parasitology 144:1468–1475

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luong LT, Heath BD, Polak M (2007) Host inbreeding increases susceptibility to ectoparasitism. J Evol Biol 20:79–86

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luong LT, Horn CJ, Brophy T (2017b) Mitey costly: energetic costs of parasite avoidance and infection. Physiol Biochem Zool 90:471–477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luong LT, Penoni LR, Horn CJ, Polak M (2015) Physical and physiological costs of ectoparasitic mites on host flight endurance. Ecol Entomol 40:518–524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luong LT, Polak M (2007) Costs of resistance in the Drosophila-macrocheles system: a negative genetic correlation between ectoparasite resistance and reproduction. Evolution 61:1391–1402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markow TA (1988) Reproductive behavior of Drosophila melanogaster and Drosophila nigrospiracula in the field and in the laboratory. J Comp Psychol 102:169–173

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niven JE, Scharlemann JPW (2005) Do insect metabolic rates at rest and during flight scale with body mass? Biol Lett 1:346–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nolan MP, Delaplane KS (2017) Parasite dispersal risk tolerance is mediated by its reproductive value. Anim Behav 132:247–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peckarsky B, Cowan C, Penton M, Anderson C (1993) Sublethal consequences of stream-dwelling predatory stoneflies on mayfly growth and fecundity. Ecology 74:1836–1846

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeiler E, Ngo NM, Markow TA (2005) Linking behavioral ecology with population genetics: insights from Drosophila nigrospiracula. Hereditas 142:1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polak M (1996) Ectoparasitic effects on host survival and reproduction: the Drosophila-Macrocheles association. Ecology 77:1379–1389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polak M (2003) Heritability of resistance against ectoparasitism in the Drosophila-Macrocheles system. J Evol Biol 16:74–82

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polak M, Markow TA (1995) Effect of ectoparasitic mites on sexual selection in a sonoran desert fruit-fly. Evolution 49:660–669

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poulin R (2007) Are there general laws in parasite ecology? Parasitology 134:763–776

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poulin R, Morand S (2000) The diversity of parasites. Q Rev Biol 75:277–293

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Studio Team (2015) R Studio: integrated development for R. RStudio, Inc, Boston, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Raeymaekers JAM, Hablutzel PI, Gregoir AF, Bamps J, Roose AK, Vanhove MPM, Van Steenberge M, Pariselle A, Huyse T, Snoeks J, Volckaert FAM (2013) Contrasting parasite communities among allopatric colour morphs of the Lake Tanganyika cichlid Tropheus. BMC Evol Biol 13:41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raffel TR, Martin LB, Rohr JR (2008) Parasites as predators: unifying natural enemy ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 23:610–618

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rigby MC, Hechinger RF, Stevens L (2002) Why should parasite resistance be costly? Trends Parasitol 18:116–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robar N, Burness G, Murray DL (2010) Tropics, trophics and taxonomy: the determinants of parasite-associated host mortality. Oikos 119:1273–1280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robar N, Murray DL, Burness G (2011) Effects of parasites on host energy expenditure: the resting metabolic rate stalemate. Can J Zool 89:1146–1155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rohr JR, Swan A, Raffel TR, Hudson PJ (2009) Parasites, info-disruption, and the ecology of fear. Oecologia 159:447–454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulenburg H, Kurtz J, Moret Y, Siva-Jothy MT (2009) Introduction ecological immunology. Philos T Roy Soc B 364:3–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheldon BC, Verhulst S (1996) Ecological immunology: costly parasite defences and trade-offs in evolutionary ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 11:317–321

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornhill R, Fincher CL (2013) The parasite-driven-wedge model of parapatric speciation. J Zool 291:23–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tollrian R, Duggen S, Weiss LC, Laforsch C, Kopp M (2015) Density-dependent adjustment of inducible defenses. Sci Rep-UK 5:12736

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yanagawa A, Guigue AMA, Marion-Poll F (2014) Hygienic grooming is induced by contact chemicals in Drosophila melanogaster. Front Behav Neurosci 8:254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yanagawa A, Neyen C, Lemaitre B, Marion-Poll F (2017) The gram-negative sensing receptor PGRP-LC contributes to grooming induction in Drosophila. PLoS One 12:e0185370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhukovskaya M, Yanagawa A, Forschler BT (2013) Grooming behavior as a mechanism of insect disease defense. Insects 4:609–630

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

LTL is funded by an NSERC Discovery Grant (#435245). Organisms came from cultures maintained by T. Brophy and M. Elahi. Volcanic ash was donated by C. Mierzejewski.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Collin J. Horn.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Communicated by S. Cremer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Horn, C.J., Luong, L.T. Current parasite resistance trades off with future defenses and flight performance. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 73, 77 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-019-2697-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-019-2697-5

Keywords

  • Bioenergetics
  • Drosophila
  • Macrocheles
  • Parasitism
  • Parasite resistance
  • Grooming behavior
  • Host behavior
  • Respiration rate