Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Love thy neighbour? Social nesting pattern, host mass and nest size affect ectoparasite intensity in Darwin’s tree finches

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Social nesting behaviour is commonly associated with high prevalence and intensity of parasites in intraspecific comparisons. Little is known about the effects of interspecific host breeding density for parasite intensity in generalist host–parasite systems. Darwin’s small tree finch (Camarhynchus parvulus) on Santa Cruz Island, Galápagos Islands, nests in both heterospecific aggregations and at solitary sites. All Darwin finch species on Santa Cruz Island are infested with larvae of the invasive blood-sucking fly Philornis downsi. In this study, we test the prediction that total P. downsi intensity (the number of parasites per nest) is higher for nests in heterospecific aggregations than at solitary nests. We also examine variation in P. downsi intensity in relation to three predictor variables: (1) nest size, (2) nest bottom thickness and (3) host adult body mass, both within and across finch species. The results show that (1) total P. downsi intensity was significantly higher for small tree finch nests with many close neighbours; (2) finches with increased adult body mass built larger nests (inter- and intraspecific comparison); (3) parasite intensity increased significantly with nest size across species and in the small tree finch alone; and (4) nest bottom thickness did not vary with nest size or parasite intensity. These results provide evidence for an interaction between social nesting behaviour, nest characteristics and host mass that influences the distribution and potential impact of mobile ectoparasites in birds.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aviles L (1999) Cooperation and non-linear dynamics: an ecological perspective on the evolution of sociality. Evol Ecol Res 1:459–477

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown CR, Brown MB (1996) Coloniality in the cliff swallow: the effect of group size on social behaviour. University of Chicago Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Burger J (1981) A model for the evolution of mixed-species colonies of Ciconiiformes. Quart Rev Biol 56:143–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bush AO, Lafferty KD, Lotz JM, Shostak AW (1997) Parasitology meets ecology on its own terms: Margolis et al. revisited. J Parasitol 83:575–583

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Causton CE, Peck SB, Sinclair BJ, Roque-Albelo L, Hodgson CJ, Landry B (2006) Alien insects: threats and implications for conservation of Galápagos Islands. Ann Entomol Soc Am 99:121–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clotfelter ED, Yasukawa K (1999) The effect of aggregated nesting on red-winged blackbird nest success and brood parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds. Condor 101:729–736

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Côté IM, Poulin R (1995) Parasitism and group size in social animals: a meta-analysis. Behav Ecol 6:159–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danchin E, Wagner RE (1997) The evolution of coloniality: the emergence of new perspectives. Trends Ecol Evol 12:343–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dudaniec RY, Kleindorfer S (2006) The effects of the parasitic flies Philornis (Diptera: Muscidae) on birds. Emu 106:13–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dudaniec RY, Kleindorfer S, Fessl B (2006) Effects of the introduced ectoparasite Philornis downsi on haemoglobin level and nestling survival in Darwin’s small ground finch (Geospiza fuliginosa). Austral Ecol 31:88–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dudaniec RY, Fessl B, Kleindorfer S (2007) Interannual and interspecific variation in intensity of the parasitic fly, Philornis downsi, in Darwin’s finches. Biol Conservat 139:325–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dudaniec RY, Gardner MG, Kleindorfer S (2008a) Isolation, characterization and multiplex polymerase chain reaction of novel mircrosatellite loci for the avian parasite Philornis downsi (Diptera: Muscidae). Mol Ecol Resources 8:142–144

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dudaniec RY, Gardner MG, Donnellan S, Kleindofer S (2008b) Genetic variation in the invasive avian parasite, Philornis downsi (Diptera, Muscidae), on the Galápagos Archipelago. BMC Ecol 8:13–25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan P, Vigne N (1979) The effect of group size in horses on the rate of attacks by blood-sucking flies. Anim Behav 27:623–625

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dvorak M, Vargas H, Fessl B, Tebbich S (2004) On the verge of extinction: a survey of the mangrove finch Camarhynchus heliobates and its habitat on the Galápagos Islands. Oryx 38:171–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eliasson U (1984) Native climax forests. In: Perry R (ed) Key environments, Galápagos. Pergamon, Oxford, pp 101–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Fenton A, Fairbairn JP, Norman R, Hudson PJ (2002) Parasite transmission: reconciling theory and reality. J Anim Ecol 71:893–905

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fessl B, Tebbich S (2002) Philornis downsi—a recently discovered parasite on the Galápagos archipelago: a threat for Darwin’s finches? Ibis 144:445–451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fessl B, Kleindorfer S, Tebbich S (2006a) An experimental study on the effects of an introduced parasite in Darwin’s finches. Biol Conservat 127:55–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fessl B, Sinclair BJ, Kleindorfer S (2006b) The life cycle of Philornis downsi (Diptera: Muscidae) parasitizing Darwin’s finches and its impacts on nestling survival. Parasitology 133:739–747

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson G, Torr SJ (1999) Visual and olfactory responses of haematophagous Diptera to host stimuli. Med Vet Entomol 13:2–23

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gold CS, Dahlsten DL (1989) Prevalence, habitat selection, and biology of Protocalliphora (Diptera, Calliphoridae) found in nests of mountain and chestnut-backed chickadees in California. Hilgardia 57:1–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant PR, Grant BR (2008) How and why species multiply: The radiation of Darwin’s finches. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant PR, Grant BR, Petren K, Keller LF (2005) Extinction behind our backs: the possible fate of one of the Darwin’s finch species on Isla Floreana, Galápagos. Biol Conservat 122:499–503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton WD (1971) Geometry for the selfish herd. J Theor Biol 31:295–311

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hoi H, Darlova A, König C, Kistofík J (1998) The relations between colony size, breeding density and ectoparasite loads of adult European bee-eaters (Merops apiaster). Ecoscience 5:156–163

    Google Scholar 

  • Holt D, Kotler B (1987) Short-term apparent competition. Am Nat 130:412–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes WOH, Petersen KS, Ugelvig LV, Pedersen D, Thomsen L, Poulsen M, Boomsma JJ (2004) Density-dependence and within-host competition in a semelparous parasite of leaf-cutting ants. BMC Evol Biol 4:45–56

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kleindorfer S (2007a) Nesting success in Darwin’s small tree finch (Camarhynchus parvulus): evidence of female preference for older males and more concealed nests. Anim Behav 74:795–804

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleindorfer S (2007b) The ecology of clutch size variation in Darwin’s small ground finch, Geospiza fuliginosa: comparison between low and highland habitats. Ibis 149:730–741

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lack D (1947) Darwin’s Finches. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Møller AP, Merino S, Brown CR, Robertson RJ (2001) Immune defence and host sociality: a comparative study of swallows and martins. Am Nat 158:136–145

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mönkkönen M, Forsman JT (2002) Heterospecific attraction among forest birds: a review. Ornithol Sci 1:41–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mooring MS, Hart BL (1992) Animal grouping for protection from parasites: Selfish herd and encounter-dilution effects. Behaviour 123:173–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muth A (2007) Control of Philornis downsi, bird parasite. Report for Department of Terrestrial Invertebrates, Charles Darwin Research Station

  • Nicolas G, Sillans D (1989) Immediate and latent effects of carbon dioxide on insects. Ann Rev Entomol 34:97–116

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell S (1997) How parasites can promote the expression of social behaviour in their hosts. Proc R Soc Lond B 264:689–694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poulin R (1991) Group-living and infestation by ectoparasites in passerines. Condor 93:418–423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poulin R (1999) Parasitism and shoal size in juvenile sticklebacks: Conflicting selection pressures from different ectoparasites? Ethology 105:959–968

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poulin R, Fitzgerald GJ (1989) Shoaling as an anti-ectoparasite mechanism in juvenile sticklebacks (Gasterosteus spp.). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 24:251–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poulin R, George-Nascimento M (2007) The scaling of total parasite biomass with host body mass. Int J Parasitol 37:359–364

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Raouf SA, Smith LC, Brown MB, Wingfield JC, Brown CR (2006) Glucocorticoid hormone levels increase with group size and parasite load in cliff swallows. Anim Behav 71:39–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Remeš V, Krist M (2005) Nest design and the abundance of parasitic Protocalliphora blow flies in two hole-nesting passerines. Écoscience 12:549–553

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson DS, Bolen GM (1999) A nesting association between semi-colonial Bullock’s orioles and yellow-billed magpies: evidence for the predator protection hypothesis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 46:373–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson BA, Hutto RL (2006) A framework for understanding ecological traps and an evaluation of existing evidence. Ecology 87:1075–1085

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Roulin A (1999) Fecundity of Carnus hemapterus (Diptera), an ectoparasite of juvenile barn owls Tyto alba. Alauda 67:205–212

    Google Scholar 

  • Silva JD, MacDonald DW, Evans PGH (1994) Net costs of group living in a solitary forager, the Eurasian badger (Meles meles). Behav Ecol 5:151–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soler JJ, Martin-Vivaldi M, Haussy C, Møller AP (2007) Intra- and interspecific relationships between nest size and immunity. Behav Ecol 18:781–791

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorci G, de Fraipont M, Clobert J (1997) Host density and ectoparasite avoidance in the common lizard (Lacerta vivipara). Oecologia 111:183–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stamps JA (1988) Conspecific attraction and aggregation in territorial species. Am Nat 131:329–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tella JL (2002) The evolutionary transition to coloniality promotes higher blood parasitism in birds. J Evol Biol 15:32–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tinbergen N (1964) On aims and methods of ethology. Zeitschrift für Tierpsycholie 20:410–433

    Google Scholar 

  • Tripet F, Christe P, Møller AP (2002) The importance of host spatial distribution for parasite specialization and speciation: a comparative study of bird fleas (Siphonaptera: Ceratophyllidae). J Anim Ecol 71:735–748

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varela SAM, Danchin E, Wagner RH (2007) Does predation select for or against avian coloniality? A comparative analysis. J Evol Biol 20:1490–1503

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner RH (1997) Hidden leks: sexual selection and the clustering of avian territories. In: Parker PG, Burley N (eds) Avian reproductive tactics: female and male perspectives. Ornithol Monog 49:123–145

  • Whiteman NK, Parker PG (2004) Effects of host sociality on ectoparasite population biology. J Parasitol 90:939–947

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Whitworth TL (1976) Host and habitat preferences, life history, pathogenicity and population regulation in species of Protocalliphora Hough (Diptera: Calliphoridae). PhD dissertation, Utah State University, Logan, UT

  • Wiedenfeld DA, Jiménez UGA, Fessl B, Kleindorfer S, Valarezo JC (2007) Distribution of the introduced parasitic fly Philornis downsi (Diptera, Muscidae) in the Galápagos Islands. Pac Conservat Biol 13:14–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Wieslo WT (1984) Gregarious nesting of a digger wasp as a “selfish herd” response to a parasitic fly (Hymenoptera: Sphecidae; Diptera: Sacrophagidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 14:157–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Wikelski M, Foufopoulos J, Vargas H, Snell H (2004) Galápagos birds and diseases: invasive pathogens as threats for island species. Ecol Soc 9 (1), article 5. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss1/art5

  • Williams GC (1966) Adaptation and natural selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson K, Bjørnstad ON, Dobson AP, Merler G, Poglayen G, Randolph SE, Read AF, Skorping A (2002) Heterogeneities in macroparasite infections: patterns and processes. In: Hudson PJ, Rizzoli A, Grenfell BT, Heesterbeek H, Dobson AP (eds) The ecology of wildlife diseases. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1–48

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the Galápagos National Park Service and the Charles Darwin Research Station for the opportunity to work on the Galápagos archipelago. This study was generously funded by the Max Planck Institute for Ornithology and the Austrian Academy of Sciences between 2000 and 2002, with awards to S. Kleindorfer, in 2004 by Flinders University through a Research Establishment Grant, Conservation International and the American Bird Conservancy. TAME airlines provided reduced airfare to the Galápagos. All procedures followed the Guidelines for the Use of Animals in Research (Flinders University, Charles Darwin Research Station, and Galápagos National Parks), the legal requirements of Ecuador, and were approved by the Animal Welfare Committee of Flinders University (permit E189). We thank: Carlos Vinueza, Santiago Torres, Gustavo Jiménez, Rebekah Christensen, and Jeremy Robertson for their dedicated field assistance, Hernan Vargas and David Wiedenfeld for logistical support and Frank J. Sulloway for helpful comments on the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Flinders University, Bedford Park, Adelaide, 5042, Australia

    Sonia Kleindorfer & Rachael Y. Dudaniec

  2. School of Biological Sciences, Flinders University, Bedford Park, Adelaide, South Australia, 5042, Australia

    Rachael Y. Dudaniec

Authors
  1. Sonia Kleindorfer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rachael Y. Dudaniec
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rachael Y. Dudaniec.

Additional information

Communicated by P. Heeb and T. Czeschlik

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kleindorfer, S., Dudaniec, R.Y. Love thy neighbour? Social nesting pattern, host mass and nest size affect ectoparasite intensity in Darwin’s tree finches. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63, 731–739 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-008-0706-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-008-0706-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation