liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Evolutionary associations between host traits and parasite load: insights from Lake Tanganyika cichlids.
Centre for Ecology and Conservation, University of Exeter, Penryn, UK.
Department of Animal Ecology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Department of Animal Ecology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Department of Zoology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.
Show others and affiliations
2017 (English)In: Journal of Evolutionary Biology, ISSN 1010-061X, E-ISSN 1420-9101, Vol. 30, no 6, 1056-1067 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Parasite diversity and abundance (parasite load) vary greatly among host species. However, the influence of host traits on variation in parasitism remains poorly understood. Comparative studies of parasite load have largely examined measures of parasite species richness and are predominantly based on records obtained from published data. Consequently, little is known about the relationships between host traits and other aspects of parasite load, such as parasite abundance, prevalence and aggregation. Meanwhile, understanding of parasite species richness may be clouded by limitations associated with data collation from multiple independent sources. We conducted a field study of Lake Tanganyika cichlid fishes and their helminth parasites. Using a Bayesian phylogenetic comparative framework, we tested evolutionary associations between five key host traits (body size, gut length, diet breadth, habitat complexity and number of sympatric hosts) predicted to influence parasitism, together with multiple measures of parasite load. We find that the number of host species that a particular host may encounter due to its habitat preferences emerges as a factor of general importance for parasite diversity, abundance and prevalence, but not parasite aggregation. In contrast, body size and gut size are positively related to aspects of parasite load within, but not between species. The influence of host phylogeny varies considerably among measures of parasite load, with the greatest influence exerted on parasite diversity. These results reveal that both host morphology and biotic interactions are key determinants of host-parasite associations and that consideration of multiple aspects of parasite load is required to fully understand patterns in parasitism.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
John Wiley & Sons, 2017. Vol. 30, no 6, 1056-1067 p.
Keyword [en]
endoparasite, evolution, fish, helminth, parasitic worm
National Category
Biological Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-135053DOI: 10.1111/jeb.13053ISI: 000403155000001PubMedID: 28187238OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-135053DiVA: diva2:1079146
Note

Funding agencies Davis Expedition Fund (University of Edinburgh); Helge Ax:son Johnsons Stiftlese; Swedish Royal Academy of Sciences (KVA) Stiftelsen Hierta-Retzius stipendiefond; Japanese Student Services Organization (JASSO); Zoologiska foundation; Austrian Science Fund

Available from: 2017-03-07 Created: 2017-03-07 Last updated: 2017-06-26

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Zidar, JosefinaLøvlie, Hanne
By organisation
BiologyFaculty of Science & Engineering
In the same journal
Journal of Evolutionary Biology
Biological Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 49 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf