No abstract

Mammalian herbivores are typically infected by parasitic nematodes, which are acquired through direct, faecal-oral transmission. These parasites can cause significant production losses in domestic livestock, but much less is known about impacts on wild mammalian hosts. We review three elements of parasitism from the host's perspective: fitness costs of infection, risks of infection during foraging and benefits of nutritious pasture. The majority of wildlife studies have been observational, but experimental manipulation is increasing. Treatment with anthelmintics to manipulate parasite load has revealed varied impacts of parasites on fitness variables across host species, but has not produced consistent evidence for parasite-induced anorexia or impaired body condition. Some experimental studies of infection risk have manipulated faecal contamination and detected faecal avoidance by hosts. Only two field studies have explored the trade-off between infection risk and nutritional benefit generated by avoidance of contaminated patches. Overall, field studies of costs, risks and benefits of the host-parasite relationship are limited and few have examined more than one of these elements. Parasitism has much in common with predation, and future insights into anti-parasite responses by wild hosts could be gained from the conceptual and technical developments in research on anti-predator behaviour.This article is part of the Theo Murphy meeting issue 'Evolution of pathogen and parasite avoidance behaviours'.

No abstract

Foraging herbivores face twin threats of predation and parasite infection, but the risk of predation has received much more attention. We evaluated, experimentally, the role of olfactory cues in predator and parasite risk assessment on the foraging behaviour of a population of marked, free-ranging, red-necked wallabies (Macropus rufogriseus). The wallabies adjusted their behaviour according to these olfactory cues. They foraged less, were more vigilant and spent less time at feeders placed in the vicinity of faeces from dogs that had consumed wallaby or kangaroo meat compared with that of dogs feeding on sheep, rabbit or possum meat. Wallabies also showed a speciesspecific faecal aversion by consuming less food from feeders contaminated with wallaby faeces compared with sympatric kangaroo faeces, whose gastrointestinal parasite fauna differs from that of the wallabies. Combining both parasite and predation cues in a single field experiment revealed that these risks had an additive effect, rather than the wallabies compromising their response to one risk at the expense of the other.