scholarly journals Predator – Prey/Host – Parasite: A fragile ecoepidemic system under homogeneous infection incidence

2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 217-267
Author(s):  
Alex P. Farrell ◽  
◽  
Horst R. Thieme ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Predator Prey ◽  
Infection Incidence ◽  
Host Parasite

scholarly journals Ecological multiplex interactions determine the role of species for parasite spread amplification

eLife ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Massimo Stella ◽  
Sanja Selakovic ◽  
Alberto Antonioni ◽  
Cecilia S Andreazzi
Keyword(s):  
Control Strategies ◽  
Predator Prey ◽  
Potential Control ◽  
Top Predators ◽  
Multiplex Network ◽  
Multiple Routes ◽  
Diverse Community ◽  
Testing Potential ◽  
Host Parasite

Despite their potential interplay, multiple routes of many disease transmissions are often investigated separately. As a unifying framework for understanding parasite spread through interdependent transmission paths, we present the ‘ecomultiplex’ model, where the multiple transmission paths among a diverse community of interacting hosts are represented as a spatially explicit multiplex network. We adopt this framework for designing and testing potential control strategies for Trypanosoma cruzi spread in two empirical host communities. We show that the ecomultiplex model is an efficient and low data-demanding method to identify which species enhances parasite spread and should thus be a target for control strategies. We also find that the interplay between predator-prey and host-parasite interactions leads to a phenomenon of parasite amplification, in which top predators facilitate T. cruzi spread, offering a mechanistic interpretation of previous empirical findings. Our approach can provide novel insights in understanding and controlling parasite spreading in real-world complex systems.

scholarly journals Will Love Tear Them Apart? Identifying the Eco-Evolutionary Feedbacks of Sexual Traits

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joao Alpedrinha ◽  
Leonor Rodrigues ◽  
Sara Magalhães ◽  
Jessica Abbott
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Selection ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Ecological Change ◽  
Ecological Context ◽  
Contemporary Evolution ◽  
Ample Evidence ◽  
Predator Prey ◽  
Host Parasite Interactions ◽  
Sexual Traits ◽  
Host Parasite

The study of eco-evolutionary feedbacks is in clear recent expansion. However, most studies concern predator-prey and host-parasite interactions, while the analysis of eco-evolutionary feedbacks involving sexual interactions is lagging behind. This is at odds with the potential of these interactions to engage in such processes. Indeed, there is now ample evidence that sexual selection is affected by ecological change. There is also evidence that sexual selection traits evolve rapidly, which may modify the ecological context of species, and thus the selection pressures they will be exposed to. Here, we first set a clear distinction between processes in which ecology drives evolution and those in which the contemporary evolution of populations may change their ecology, depending on which traits act as drivers and objects of change. We then review evidence for these processes and discuss examples of closed eco-evolutionary feedbacks in an attempt to understand how we can tear this loop apart. We suggest that a better understanding of eco-evolutionary feedbacks of sexual selection may help us understand the effects of sexual selection on the rate of adaptation, speciation, and extinction, and thus foster future research in this area.

Sarcocystosis of chital (Axis axis) and dhole (Cuon alpinus): ecology of a mammalian prey–predator–parasite system in Peninsular India

2005 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 479-482 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maithili M. Jog ◽  
Rahul R. Marathe ◽  
Shantanu S. Goel ◽  
Sachin P. Ranade ◽  
Krushnamegh K. Kunte ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prey Capture ◽  
Natural Populations ◽  
Peninsular India ◽  
Predator Prey ◽  
Cuon Alpinus ◽  
Axis Axis ◽  
Mutualistic Relationship ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Mutualistic Association ◽  
Host Parasite

The question as to whether predators preferentially kill sick or disabled individuals has been addressed by many ecologists working with different predator–prey systems. Rau & Caron (1979) showed that heavily infected moose were more susceptible to hunting. Kruuk (1972) observed that hyenas appeared to select sick animals in the Serengeti. Vorisek et al. (1998) demonstrated that voles infected with a species of Frenkelia were taken more frequently by buzzards. As a broad generalization, wherever prey capture is difficult and involves large energy expenditure a greater proportion of sick animals seems to be captured (Fitzgibbon & Fanshawe 1989, Holmes & Bethel 1972, Temple 1987). In a host–parasite association where the prey species is an intermediate host and the predator is the definitive host, the capture of the prey is often an essential part of the life cycle. Therefore any mechanism which makes the prey susceptible to predation would enhance the parasite's fitness. In such relationships the susceptibility induced by the parasite can be very specific to the predator host (Levri 1998). Freedman (1990) suggested that a mutualistic association between the predator and parasite might exist. A mutualistic relationship can be said to exist between a predator and a parasite if the cost of harbouring the parasite is less than the benefit of greater success in catching the prey. There is perhaps no demonstrated example of such a mutualism in natural populations since it is difficult to weigh the parasite cost against the predation benefit.

scholarly journals Using process algebra to develop predator–prey models of within-host parasite dynamics

2013 ◽  
Vol 329 ◽  
pp. 74-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris McCaig ◽  
Andy Fenton ◽  
Andrea Graham ◽  
Carron Shankland ◽  
Rachel Norman
Keyword(s):  
Process Algebra ◽  
Predator Prey ◽  
Predator Prey Models ◽  
Host Parasite ◽  
Parasite Dynamics

Biodiversity and biogeography in heterospecific teleostean (Gadidae) – copepod (Lernaeocera) associations

1993 ◽  
Vol 71 (8) ◽  
pp. 1639-1645 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claire Tirard ◽  
Patrick Berrebi ◽  
André Raibaut ◽  
François Renaud
Keyword(s):  
Geographical Area ◽  
Western Mediterranean ◽  
Merluccius Merluccius ◽  
Predator Prey ◽  
The North ◽  
Large Sector ◽  
The North Sea ◽  
Merlangius Merlangus ◽  
The Mediterranean ◽  
Host Parasite

This genetic study confirms the validity of two controversial parasite species, Lernaeocera branchialis and Lernaeocera lusci (Copepoda, Pennellidae). These species cohabit throughout a large sector of the North Sea and the Atlantic Ocean, parasitizing Merlangius merlangus and Trisopterus luscus (Teleostei, Gadidae), respectively. In the Mediterranean Sea, it was L. branchialis that was described initially. We have shown, however, that it is L. lusci that parasitizes T. luscus and Merluccius merluccius in this geographical area. The distribution of L. lusci, as well as that of its host, T. luscus, must extend into the Mediterranean. Lernaeocera lusci has colonized a phylogenetically distant host (Merluccius merluccius) in the Mediterranean and our results show that this species has become the preferred host for the maturation of L. lusci in this region. In addition, we have demonstrated the existence of genetic differentiation between T. luscus from the Atlantic and from the western Mediterranean. Thus, it is possible that the specialization of L. lusci in a new resource (M. merluccius) in the Mediterranean might be related to biological changes undergone by this copepod's original host, Trisopterus luscus. In contrast to other parasite groups such as the Monogenea, the specialization of species of the genus Lernaeocera would appear to depend more on ecological parameters (relative abundance and availability of resources) than on phylogenetic constraints. The relationships within these host–parasite systems are therefore compared with the predator–prey relationships.

Economic Specialization and the Nested Bipartite Network of City–Firm Relations

2018 ◽  
pp. 74-83 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonios Garas ◽  
Céline Rozenblat ◽  
Frank Schweitzer
Keyword(s):  
Bipartite Network ◽  
Bipartite Networks ◽  
Economic Activities ◽  
Predator Prey ◽  
Herbivore Interactions ◽  
Plant Herbivore ◽  
Economic Specialization ◽  
Host Parasite ◽  
The City

The chapter “Economic Specialization and the Nested Bipartite Network of City–Firm Relations” shows how the structure of the city–firm bipartite network has striking similarities with other types of bipartite networks found in ecology. There, nodes represent species, while links represent their interactions. In so-called antagonistic networks, such as food webs, the interaction between species is asymmetric, such as in host–parasite, predator–prey, and plant–herbivore interactions. In so-called mutualistic networks, on the other hand, the interaction between species is symmetric, that is, both species interact in a mutually beneficial way such as, for example, the way that plants interact with their pollinators. This chapter shows that ecological indicators can be used to identify the unbalanced deployment of economic activities; it also provides evidence that the network of city–firm relations contains information about the quality of life in cities.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document