Trait‐based and phylogenetic associations between parasites and their hosts: a case study with small mammals and fleas in the Palearctic

The range of hosts a pathogen infects (host specificity) is a key element of disease risk that may be influenced by both shared phylogenetic history and shared ecological attributes of prospective hosts. Phylospecificity indices quantify host specificity in terms of host relatedness, but can fail to capture ecological attributes that increase susceptibility. For instance, similarity in habitat niche may expose phylogenetically unrelated host species to similar pathogen assemblages. Using a recently proposed method that integrates multiple distances, we assess the relative contributions of host phylogenetic and functional distances to pathogen host specificity (functional-phylogenetic host specificity). We apply this index to a data set of avian malaria parasite (Plasmodium and Haemoproteus spp.) infections from Melanesian birds to show that multihost parasites generally use hosts that are closely related, not hosts with similar habitat niches. We also show that host community phylogenetic ß-diversity (Pßd) predicts parasite Pßd and that individual host species carry phylogenetically clustered Haemoproteus parasite assemblages. Our findings were robust to phylogenetic uncertainty, and suggest that phylogenetic ancestry of both hosts and parasites plays important roles in driving avian malaria host specificity and community assembly. However, restricting host specificity analyses to either recent or historical timescales identified notable exceptions, including a 'habitat specialist' parasite that infects a diversity of unrelated host species with similar habitat niches. This work highlights that integrating ecological and phylogenetic distances provides a powerful approach to better understand drivers of pathogen host specificity and community assembly.

show abstract

“…; Krasnov et al . ). Pervasive features of host–pathogen systems are the ability of some pathogens to infect multiple host species (i.e.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Integrating phylogenetic and ecological distances reveals new insights into parasite host specificity

Clark

Clegg

2017

Molecular Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A strong incentive exists to identify barriers to species establishment and determine how these barriers modulate invasion risk (Hoberg, ; Kelly, Paterson, Townsend, Poulin, & Tompkins, ; Springborn et al., ). For parasites, geographic barriers (such as distance or mountain ranges) are known to constrain species’ distributions (Brooks & Ferrao, ; Krasnov, Shenbrot, Khokhlova, & Degen, ; Lafferty, ; Warburton, Kohler, & Vonhof, ). In addition, environmental barriers (such as temperature and precipitation) drive development or transmission rates for many parasites, especially vector‐borne parasites such as those causing malaria and lyme disease (Epstein, ; Githeko, Lindsay, Confalonieri, & Patz, ; Patz, Campbell‐Lendrum, Holloway, & Foley, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A strong incentive exists to identify barriers to species establishment and determine how these barriers modulate invasion risk (Hoberg, 2010;Kelly, Paterson, Townsend, Poulin, & Tompkins, 2009;Springborn et al, 2015). For parasites, geographic barriers (such as distance or mountain ranges) are known to constrain species' distributions (Brooks & Ferrao, 2005;Krasnov, Shenbrot, Khokhlova, & Degen, 2016;Lafferty, 2009;Warburton, Kohler, & Vonhof, 2016).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate, host phylogeny and the connectivity of host communities govern regional parasite assembly

Clark

Clegg

Sam

et al. 2017

Diversity and Distributions

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: Identifying barriers that govern parasite community assembly and parasite invasion risk is critical to understand how shifting host ranges impact disease emergence.We studied regional variation in the phylogenetic compositions of bird species and their blood parasites (Plasmodium and Haemoproteus spp.) to identify barriers that shape parasite community assembly.Location: Australasia and Oceania. Methods:We used a data set of parasite infections from >10,000 host individuals sampled across 29 bioregions. Hierarchical models and matrix regressions were used to assess the relative influences of interspecies (host community connectivity and local phylogenetic distinctiveness), climate and geographic barriers on parasite local distinctiveness and composition.Results: Parasites were more locally distinct (co-occurred with distantly related parasites) when infecting locally distinct hosts, but less distinct (co-occurred with closely related parasites) in areas with increased host diversity and community connectivity (a proxy for parasite dispersal potential). Turnover and the phylogenetic symmetry of parasite communities were jointly driven by host turnover, climate similarity and geographic distance. Main conclusions:Interspecies barriers linked to host phylogeny and dispersal shape parasite assembly, perhaps by limiting parasite establishment or local diversification.Infecting hosts that co-occur with few related species decreases a parasite's likelihood of encountering related competitors, perhaps increasing invasion potential but decreasing diversification opportunity. While climate partially constrains parasite distributions, future host range expansions that spread distinct parasites and diminish barriers to host shifting will likely be key drivers of parasite invasions. K E Y W O R D Scommunity assembly, host shifting, host specificity, interspecies barriers, parasite invasion, Plasmodium

show abstract

“…Although mixing both traits and phylogeny could be efficient to predict ecological interactions (Morales‐Castilla et al., ), food web models including them are descriptive only (Krasnov, Shenbrot, Khokhlova, & Degen, ; Rafferty & Ives, ; Rezende, Albert, Fortuna, & Bascompte, ; Rohr, Scherer, Kehrli, Mazza, & Bersier, ). The few existing predictive models are still based uniquely on trait matching (Gravel et al., ; Rohr, Naisbit, Mazza, & Bersier, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trait matching and phylogeny as predictors of predator–prey interactions involving ground beetles

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract1. With global change modifying species assemblages, our success in predicting ecosystem-level consequences of these new communities will depend, in part, on our ability to understand biotic interactions. Current food web theory considers interactions between numerous species simultaneously, but descriptive models are unable to predict interactions between newly co-occurring species. Incorporating proxies such as functional traits and phylogeny into models could help infer predator/prey interactions.2. Here, we used trait matching between predator feeding traits and prey vulnerability traits, along with phylogeny (used as a proxy for chemical defence and other traits difficult to document), to infer predatory interactions using ground beetles as model organisms.3. A feeding experiment was conducted involving 20 ground beetle and 115 prey species to determine which pair of species did or did not interact. Eight predator and four prey functional traits were measured directly on specimens. Then, using a modelling approach based on the matching-centrality formalism, we evaluated 511 predictive ecological models that tested different combinations of all predator and prey functional traits, and phylogenetic information.4. The most parsimonious model accurately predicted 81% of the observed realized and unrealized interactions, using phylogenetic information and the trait-matches predator biting force/prey cuticular toughness and predator/prey body size ratio.The best trait-based models predicted correctly >80% which species interact (realized interactions), but predict <58% of which species did not interact (unrealized interactions). Adding a phylogenetic term representing the evolutionary distance within each trophic level increased the ability to predict which species did not interact to >75%.5. The matching of predator biting force and prey cuticular toughness demonstrated a better predictive power than the commonly used predator/prey body size ratio.Our novel model combining both functional traits and phylogeny extends beyond existing descriptive approaches and could represent a valuable tool to predict consumer/resource interactions of newly introduced species and to resolve cryptic food webs. K E Y W O R D Sfood web, functional traits, matching-centrality formalism, networks, trophic interactions

show abstract

Trait‐based and phylogenetic associations between parasites and their hosts: a case study with small mammals and fleas in the Palearctic

Cited by 49 publications

References 70 publications

Integrating phylogenetic and ecological distances reveals new insights into parasite host specificity

Integrating phylogenetic and ecological distances reveals new insights into parasite host specificity

Climate, host phylogeny and the connectivity of host communities govern regional parasite assembly

Trait matching and phylogeny as predictors of predator–prey interactions involving ground beetles

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About