Abstract
Many parasites are known to manipulate the behaviour of intermediate hosts in order to increase their probability of transmission to definitive hosts. This manipulation must have costs. Here we explore the combined effects of three such costs on the amount of effort a parasite should expend on host manipulation. Manipulation can have direct costs to future reproductive success due to energy expended to manipulate the host. There may also be indirect costs if other parasites infect the host and profit from the manipulation without paying the cost of manipulation. These “free riders” may impose a third cost by competing with manipulators for resources within the host. Using game theory analysis and several different competition models we show that intrahost competition will decrease the investment that a parasite should make in manipulation but that manipulation can, under some circumstances, be a profitable strategy even in the presence of non-manipulating competitors. The key determinants of the manipulator’s success and its investment in manipulation are the relatedness among parasites within the host, the ratio of the passive transmission rate to the efficiency of increasing transmission rate and the strength of competitive effects. Manipulation, when exploited by others, becomes an altruistic behaviour. Thus we suggest that our model may be generally applicable to cases where organisms can exploit the investment of others (possibly kin) while also competing with the organism whose investment they exploit.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson RM, May RM (1978) Regulation and stability of host-parasite interactions: regulatory processes. J Anim Ecol 47:219–247
Brown SP (1999) Cooperation and conflict in host-manipulating parasites. Proc Royal Soc Lond B 266:1899–1904
Brown SP (2001) Collective action in an RNA virus. J Evol Biol 14:821–828
Brown SP, Hochberg ME, Grenfell BT (2002) Does multiple infection select for raised virulence? Trends Microbiol 10:401–405
Brown SP, De Lorgeril J, Joly C, Thomas F (2003) Field evidence for density-dependent effects in the trematode Microphallus papillorobustus in its manipulated host, Gammarus insensibilis. J Parasitol 89:668–672
Carney WP (1969) Behavioral and morphological changes in carpenter ants harboring Dicrocoeliid metacercariae. Am Midl Nat 82:605–611
Combes C (2001) Parasitism: the ecology and evolution of intimate interactions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Dezfuli BS, Giari L, Poulin R (2001) Costs of intraspecific and interspecific host sharing in acanthocephalan cystacanths. Parasitology 122:483–489
Fernández-Juricic E, Smith R, Kacelnik A (2005) Increasing the costs of conspecific scanning in socially foraging starlings affects vigilance and foraging behaviour. Anim Behav 69:73–81
Fredensborg BL, Poulin R (2005) Larval helminths in intermediate hosts: does competition early in life determine the fitness of adult parasites? Int J Parasitol 35:1061–1070
Hamilton WD (1964) The genetic evolution of social behaviour. I & II. J Theor Biol 7:1–51
Helluy S, Holmes JC (1990) Serotonin, octopamine, and the clinging behaviour induced by the parasite Polymorphus paradoxus (Acanthocephala) in Gammarus lacustris (Crustacea). Can J Zool 68:1214–1220
Helluy S, Thomas F (2003) Effects of Microphallus papillorobustus (Platyhelminthes: Trematoda) on serotonergic immunoreactivity and neuronal architecture in the brain of Gammarus insensibilis (Crustacea: Amphipoda). Proc Royal Soc Lond B 270:563–568
Jäger I, Schjørring S (2006) Multiple infections: relatedness and time between infections affect the establishment and growth of the cestode Schistocephalus solidus in its stickleback host. Evolution 60:616–622
Kearn GC (1998) Parasitism and the platyhelminths. Chapman & Hall, London
Keeney DB, Waters JM, Poulin R (2007) Diversity of trematode genetic clones within amphipods and the timing of same-clone infections. Int J Parasitol 37:351–357
Lafferty KD (1999) The evolution of trophic transmission. Parasitol Today 15:111–115
Lafferty KD, Morris AK (1996) Altered behavior of parasitized killifish increases susceptibility to predation by bird final hosts. Ecology 77:1390–1397
Lagrue C, Poulin R, Keeney DB (2009) Effects of clonality in multiple infections on the life-history strategy of the trematode Coitocaecum parvum in its amphipod intermediate host. Evolution 63:1417–1426
Maynard Smith J (1982) Evolution and the theory of games. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Michaud M, Milinski M, Parker GA, Chubb JC (2006) Competitive growth strategies in intermediate hosts: experimental tests of a parasite life-history model using the cestode, Schistocephalus solidus. Evol Ecol 20:39–57
Moore J (2002) Parasites and the behavior of animals. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Mouritsen KN, Jensen KT (1997) Parasite transmission between soft-bottom invertebrates: temperature mediated infection rates and mortality in Corophium volutator. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 151:123–134
Ohtsuka Y, Toquenaga Y (2008) Pioneer-follower dilemma game in Acanthosceledis obtectus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). J Ethol (in press–online copy)
Øverli Ø, Pàll M, Borg B, Jobling M, Winberg S (2001) Effects of Schistocephalus solidus infection on brain monoaminergic activity in female three-spined sticklebacks Gaterosteus aculeatus. Proc Royal Soc Lond B 268:1411–1415
Parker GA, Chubb JC, Roberts GN, Michaud M, Milinski M (2003) Optimal growth strategies of larval helminths in their intermediate hosts. J Evol Biol 16:47–54
Poulin R (1994) The evolution of parasite manipulation of host behaviour: a theoretical analysis. Parasitology 109:S109–S118
Poulin R (1998) Evolutionary ecology of parasites: from individuals to communities. Chapman & Hall, London
Poulin R, Fredensborg BL, Hansen E, Leung TLF (2005) The true cost of host manipulation by parasites. Behav Process 68:241–244
Queller DC (1994) Genetic relatedness in viscous populations. Evol Ecol 80:70–73
Romig T, Lucius R, Frank W (1980) Cerebral larvae in the second intermediate host of Dicrocoelium dendriticum (Rudolphi, 1819) and Dicrocoelium hospes Looss, 1907 (Trematoda, Dicrocoeliidae). Zeitschrift für Parasitenkunde 63:277–286
Rosen R, Dick TA (1983) Development and infectivity of the procercoid of Triaenophorus crassus forel and mortality of the first intermediate host. Can J Zool 61:2120–2128
Sandland GJ, Goater CP (2000) Development and intensity-dependence of Ornithodiplostomum ptychocheilus metacercariae in fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas). J Parasitol 86:1056–1060
Thomas F, Adamo S, Moore J (2005) Parasitic manipulation: where are we and where should we go? Behav Process 68:185–199
Thompson SN, Kavaliers M (1994) Physiological bases for parasite induced alterations of behaviour. Parasitology 109:S119–S138
Vickery WL, Giraldeau L-A, Templeton JJ, Kramer DL, Chapman CA (1992) Producers, scroungers, and group foraging. Am Nat 137:847–863
Webber RA, Rau ME, Lewis DJ (1987) The effects of Plagiorchis noblei (Trematoda: Plagiorchiidae) metacercariae on the behaviour of Aedes aegypti larvae. Can J Zool 65:1340–1342
West SA, Buckling A (2003) Cooperation, virulence and siderophore production in bacterial parasites. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:37–44
West SA, Murray MG, Machado CA, Griffin AS, Herre EA (2001) Testing Hamilton’, s rule with competition between relatives. Nature 409:510–513
Wickler W (1976) Evolution-oriented ethology, kin selection, and altruistic parasites. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 42:206–214
Wilson DS (1977) How nepotistic is the brain worm? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 2:421–425
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by the Natural Scientific and Engineering Research Council of Canada and by the Marsden Fund of New Zealand.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix 1: Comparison of analyses based on five different competition models
-
(a)
Fitness equations used for the competition models
MODEL
-
(b)
ESS investment in host manipulation (x*)
MODEL
-
(c)
Proportional decrease in x* at p 0 = 0 due to competition
MODEL
(Note: Almost all of these proportions are positive which suggests that competition decreases investment when the passive transmission rate is 0).
-
(d)
dx*/dN (The effect of parasite load on investment in host maipulation) (When the differential is negative, investment should decrease as parasite load increases.)
MODEL
-
(e)
dx*/dr (The effect of relatedness on investment)
MODEL
-
(f)
dx*/db (The effect of conversion efficiency on investment in host manipulation)
MODEL
-
(g)
dx*/dp 0 (The effect of passive transmission rate on investment in host manipulation)
MODEL
-
(h)
dx*/dK (The effect of reducing competition intensity (increasing K) on investment in host manipulation)
MODEL
Shared resources (Does not apply)
Appendix 2: Evaluation of non-linear models
We explore possible effects of a non linear version of Eq. 1 using:
where a is a parameter which describes the shape of the combined effects of all the parasites in the host on the host’s susceptibility to predation by the parasite’s definitive host. When a exceeds one the combined effect of the parasites exceeds the sum of the individual effects producing a certain synergy; when a is less than one, the combined effect is less than the sum of the individual effects. When a = 1, Eq. A1 becomes Eq. 1.
Most of the inferences drawn from Eq. 1 are also supported by analysis of Eq. A1. For all positive values of a, increases in competition should decrease the investment in host manipulation and the proportional decrease is described by Eq. 4. As in the linear model, investment should increase as relatedness, r, and as manipulation efficiency, b, increase; investment should decrease as the passive transmission rate, p 0, increases. Analysis of the non linear model differs from the linear model only with respect to the effect of increases in parasite load. In this case, Eq. 5 describing the conditions under which investment should increase as parasite load increases becomes
This condition differs greatly from Eq. 5 because of the presence of N on the right hand side of the equation. If a < 1, indicating that the combined effect of several parasites is less than the sum of their individual effects, investment should decrease with increased parasite load at all passive transmission rates. Further, the range of passive transmission rates and parasite loads for which manipulation is profitable is greatly reduced compared to the linear model.
On the other hand, when a > 1, lower passive transmission rates (compared to the linear model) can generate increased manipulation as a function of increased parasite load while manipulation will be profitable under a wider range of passive transmission rates and parasite loads.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Vickery, W.L., Poulin, R. The evolution of host manipulation by parasites: a game theory analysis. Evol Ecol 24, 773–788 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10682-009-9334-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10682-009-9334-0