Advertisement

Parasitology Research

, 101:365 | Cite as

Between-host phylogenetic distance and feeding efficiency in hematophagous ectoparasites: rodent fleas and a bat host

  • Boris R. KrasnovEmail author
  • Carmi Korine
  • Nadezhda V. Burdelova
  • Irina S. Khokhlova
  • Berry Pinshow
Original Paper

Abstract

We hypothesized that a parasite exploits most effectively its principal host, less effectively a host that is phylogenetically close to its principal host, and least effectively a host that is phylogenetically distant from its principal host. We tested this hypothesis by quantifying the feeding efficiency of two flea species (Parapulex chephrenis and Xenopsylla ramesis) on two rodents, Acomys cahirinus, the specific host of P. chephrenis, and Meriones crassus, a preferred host of X. ramesis, and one bat, Rousettus aegyptiacus, an alien host to both flea species. In both fleas, fewer individuals succeed in feeding when offered with their nonspecific or nonpreferred rodent host to feed on compared with those allowed to feed on their preferred or specific rodent host or, surprisingly, on a bat. The proportion of P. chephrenis that fed was higher on A. cahirinus than on R. aegyptiacus. In contrast, similar proportions of X. ramesis took blood from M. crassus and R. aegyptiacus. The mass-independent size of the blood meal taken by the fleas differed significantly between species, being higher in X. ramesis than in P. chephrenis. However, each flea species took similar amounts of blood from any of the three host species. The duration of early, middle, and late digestion stages differed significantly between P. chephrenis and Xenopsylla conformis, all being shorter in the former, independent of the source of blood. Both fleas digested bat blood significantly faster than the blood of either rodent host. The time of survival after a single blood meal differed significantly between flea species, with X. ramesis surviving significantly longer than P. chephrenis, although no effect of host species on flea survival was found. In terms of the evaluation criteria that we used, we concluded that (a) the alien bat host appeared not to be inferior as a source of food to a rodent host phylogenetically close to the flea’s principal host and (b) that the rarity of finding rodent fleas on bats is not related to the feeding efficiency of the fleas.

Keywords

Host Species Blood Meal Spiny Mouse Flea Species Rodent Host 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was partly supported by the Israel Science Foundation (grant no. 249/04 to BRK and ISK). This is publication number 557 of the Mitrani Department of Desert Ecology and number 226 of the Ramon Science Center.

References

  1. Brooks DR, McLennan DA (1991) Phylogeny, ecology, and behavior: a research program in comparative biology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  2. Christe P, Arlettaz R, Vogel P (2000) Variation in intensity of a parasitic mite (Spinturnix myoti) in relation to the reproductive cycle and immunocompetence of its bat host (Myotis myotis). Ecol Lett 3:207–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Combes C (1991) Evolution of parasite life cycles. In: Toft CA, Aeschlimann A, Bolis L (eds) Parasite–host associations: coexistence or conflict? Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 62–82Google Scholar
  4. Combes C (2001) Parasitism. The ecology and evolution of intimate interactions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  5. Euzet L, Combes C (1980) Les problemes de l’espece chez les animaux parasites. Bull Soc Zool Fr 40:239–285Google Scholar
  6. Hopkins GHE, Rothschild M (1953) An illustrated catalogue of the Rothschild collection of fleas (Siphonaptera) in the British Museum (Natural History), vol I. Tungidae and Pulicidae. The Trustees of the British Museum, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Hůrka K (1963) Bat fleas (Aphaniptera, Ischnopsyllidae) of Czechoslovakia. Contribution to the distribution, morphology, bionomy, ecology and systematics. Part 1. Subgenus Ischnopsyllus Westw. Acta Faunist Entomol Mus Nation Prague 9:57–120Google Scholar
  8. Ioff IG (1949) Aphaniptera of Kyrgyzia. Ectoparasites 1:5–212, (in Russian)Google Scholar
  9. Khokhlova IS, Krasnov BR, Shenbrot GI, Degen AA (1994) Seasonal body mass changes and habitat distribution of several rodent species in the Ramon erosion cirque, Negev Highlands, Israel. Zool Zh 73:115–121, (in Russian)Google Scholar
  10. Khokhlova IS, Krasnov BR, Shenbrot GI, Degen AA (2001) Body mass and environment: a study in Negev rodents. Isr J Zool 47:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Khokhlova IS, Spinu M, Krasnov BR, Degen AA (2004) Immune response to fleas in a wild desert rodent: effect of parasite species, parasite burden, sex of host and host parasitological experience. J Exp Biol 207:2725–2733PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Krasnov BR, Shenbrot GI, Khokhlova IS, Degen AA, Rogovin KV (1996) On the biology of Sundevall’s jird (Meriones crassus Sundevall) in Negev Highlands, Israel. Mammalia 60:375–391Google Scholar
  13. Krasnov BR, Shenbrot GI, Medvedev SG, Vatschenok VS, Khokhlova IS (1997) Host–habitat relation as an important determinant of spatial distribution of flea assemblages (Siphonaptera) on rodents in the Negev Desert. Parasitology 114:159–173PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Krasnov BR, Hastriter M, Medvedev SG, Shenbrot GI, Khokhlova IS, Vatschenok VS (1999) Additional records of fleas (Siphonaptera) on wild rodents in the southern part of Israel. Isr J Zool 45:333–340Google Scholar
  15. Krasnov BR, Khokhlova IS, Fielden LJ, Burdelova NV (2001) The effect of temperature and humidity on the survival of pre-imaginal stages of two flea species (Siphonaptera: Pulicidae). J Med Entomol 38:629–637PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Krasnov BR, Khokhlova IS, Oguzoglu I, Burdelova NV (2002a) Host discrimination by two desert fleas using an odour cue. Anim Behav 64:33–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Krasnov BR, Burdelova NV, Shenbrot GI, Khokhlova IS (2002b) Annual cycles of four flea species (Siphonaptera) in the central Negev desert. Med Vet Entomol 16:266–276PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Krasnov BR, Sarfati M, Arakelyan MS, Khokhlova IS, Burdelova NV, Degen AA (2003) Host-specificity and foraging efficiency in blood-sucking parasite: Feeding patterns of a flea Parapulex chephrenis on two species of desert rodents. Parasitol Res 90:393–399PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Krasnov BR, Khokhlova IS, Burdelova NV, Mirzoyan NS, Degen AA (2004a) Fitness consequences of density-dependent host selection in ectoparasites: Testing reproductive patterns predicted by isodar theory in fleas parasitizing rodents. J Anim Ecol 73:815–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Krasnov BR, Shenbrot GI, Khokhlova IS, Poulin R (2004b) Relationships between parasite abundance and the taxonomic distance among a parasite’s host species: An example with fleas parasitic on small mammals. Int J Parasitol 34:1289–1297PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lewis RE (1967) The fleas (Siphonaptera) of Egypt. An illustrated and annotated key. J Parasitol 53:863–885PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lewis RE (1990) An annotated checklist of the fleas (Siphonaptera) of the Middle East. Fauna Saudi Arabia 11:251–276Google Scholar
  23. Lewis RE, Lewis JH, Maser C (1988) The fleas of the Pacific Northwest. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, ORGoogle Scholar
  24. Maizels RM, Balic A, Gomez-Escobar N, Nair M, Taylor MD, Allen JE (2004) Helminth parasites—masters of regulation. Immunol Rev 201:89–116PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Marshall AG (1981) The ecology of ectoparasite insects. Academic, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. Medvedev SG (1989) Ecological peculiarities and distribution of the fleas of the family Ischnopsyllidae (Siphonaptera). Parasitological Collection 36:21–43, (in Russian)Google Scholar
  27. Morris DW (1987) Ecological scale and habitat use. Ecology 68:362–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Poulin R (2004) Relative infection levels and taxonomic distances among the host species used by a parasite: insights into parasite specialization. Parasitology 130:109–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Poulin R, Mouillot D (2004) The relationship between specialization and local abundance: the case of helminth parasites of birds. Oecologia 140:372–378PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shargal E, Kronfeld-Schor N, Dayan T (2000) Population biology and spatial relationships of coexisting spiny mice (Acomys) in Israel. J Mammal 81:1046–1052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Singh SK, Girschick HJ (2003) Tick-host interactions and their immunological implications in tick-borne diseases. Curr Sci 85:1284–1298Google Scholar
  32. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry, 3rd edn. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Theodor O, Costa M (1967) A survey of the parasites of wild mammals and birds in Israel. (I) Ectoparasites. Israel Academy of Science and Humanities, JerusalemGoogle Scholar
  34. Winston PW, Bates DH (1960) Saturated solutions for the control of humidity in biological research. Ecology 41:232–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Boris R. Krasnov
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Carmi Korine
    • 1
    • 2
  • Nadezhda V. Burdelova
    • 2
  • Irina S. Khokhlova
    • 3
  • Berry Pinshow
    • 1
  1. 1.Mitrani Department of Desert Ecology, Jacob Blaustein Institutes for Desert ResearchBen-Gurion University of the NegevMidreshet Ben-GurionIsrael
  2. 2.Ramon Science CenterMizpe RamonIsrael
  3. 3.Desert Animal Adaptations and Husbandry, Wyler Department of Dryland AgricultureJacob Blaustein Institutes for Desert Research, Ben-Gurion University of the NegevMidreshet Ben-GurionIsrael

Personalised recommendations