Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Dec;200(3-4):339-347.
doi: 10.1007/s00442-022-05268-8. Epub 2022 Oct 1.

Relative contributions of parasite consumptive and non-consumptive effects to host population suppression in simulated fly-mite populations

Affiliations

Relative contributions of parasite consumptive and non-consumptive effects to host population suppression in simulated fly-mite populations

Collin J Horn et al. Oecologia. 2022 Dec.

Abstract

The "ecology of fear" framework was developed to describe the impacts predators have on potential prey and prey populations, outside of consumption/predation (i.e. non-consumptive effects, NCEs). This framework has recently been extended to symbiotic interactions such as host-parasite associations. Although the NCEs of predators and parasites on their individual victims can be measured experimentally, it is currently not known whether parasites can exert population-level effects on potential hosts through their NCEs. Modelling can be a useful tool for scaling individual-level NCEs to populations to determine impacts on host population growth. In this study, we used previously published data on the consumptive and non-consumptive effects of an ectoparasitic mite (Macrocheles subbadius) on a fruit fly (Drosophila nigrospiracula) to simulate populations experiencing fear (NCEs only), both fear and infection (consumption + NCEs) or neither. Population-level models indicate that NCEs alone were insufficient to reduce population growth. In fact, host populations experiencing NCEs but not infection had slightly larger final populations than unexposed populations (by ~ 550 flies). This result suggests there is compensation (i.e. increased daily reproduction that overcomes shorter lifespans) among exposed flies. By contrast, the consumptive effects of parasites suppressed the growth of simulated host populations, and this deleterious impact grew non-linearly with infection prevalence.

Keywords: Compensation; Ecology of fear; Host–parasite interaction; Population growth; Statistical model.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Abram PK, Brodeur J, Urbaneja A, Tena A (2019) Nonreproductive effects of insect parasitoids on their hosts. Annu Rev Entomol 64:259–276 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Adamo SA (1999) Evidence for adaptive changes in egg laying in crickets exposed to bacteria and parasites. Anim Behav 57:117–124. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1998.0999 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Belgrad BA, Griffen BD (2016) Predator-prey interactions mediated by prey personality and predator hunting mode. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 283:20160408 - DOI
    1. Benoit JB, Bose J, Bailey ST, Polak M (2020) Interactions with ectoparasitic mites induce host metabolic and immune responses in flies at the expense of reproduction-associated factors. Parasitology 147:1196–1205 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Breitmeyer CM, Markow TA (1998) Resource availability and population size in cactophilic Drosophila. Funct Ecol 12:14–21 - DOI

LinkOut - more resources