| Literature DB >> 30951566 |
Matthias Galipaud1, Loïc Bollache2, Clément Lagrue3.
Abstract
Shared parasites can strongly influence the outcome of competition between congeneric, sympatric hosts, and thus host population dynamics. Parasite-mediated competition is commonly hypothesized as an important factor in biological invasion success; invasive species often experience lower infection levels and/or parasite-induced mortality than native congeneric hosts. However, variation in infection levels among sympatric hosts can be due to contrasting abilities to avoid infection or different parasite-induced mortality rates following infection. Low parasite infection levels in a specific host can be due to either factor but have drastically different implications in interaction outcomes between sympatric hosts. We assessed acanthocephalan infection levels (prevalence and abundance) among cryptic molecular taxonomic units (MOTU) of the native G. pulex/G. fossarum species complex from multiple populations where they occur in sympatry. We concomitantly estimated the same parameters in the invasive Gammarus roeseli commonly found in sympatry with G. pulex/G. fossarum MOTUs. We then tested for potential differences in parasite-induced mortality among these alternative hosts. As expected, the invasive G. roeseli showed relatively low infection level and was not subject to parasite-induced mortality. We also found that both acanthocephalan infection levels and parasite-induced mortality varied greatly among cryptic MOTUs of the native amphipods. Contrary to expectations, some native MOTUs displayed levels of resistance to their local parasites similar to those observed in the invasive G. roeseli. Overall, cryptic diversity in native amphipods coupled with high levels of variability in infection levels and parasite-induced mortality documented here may strongly influence inter-MOTU interactions and native population dynamics as well as invasion success and population dynamics of the congeneric invasive G. roeseli.Entities:
Keywords: Acanthocephalan parasites; Biological invasion; Cryptic diversity; Gammarus fossarum/Gammarus pulex species complex; Gammarus roeseli; Infection levels; Parasite-induced mortality
Year: 2017 PMID: 30951566 PMCID: PMC5715213 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijppaw.2017.04.005
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Parasitol Parasites Wildl ISSN: 2213-2244 Impact factor: 2.674
Fig. 1Genetic divergence levels (%) among MOTUs of the G. fossarum/G. pulex species complex found in our sampling sites/rivers. Gammarus roeseli was identified morphologically rather than genetically.
Fig. 2Mean parasite prevalences (proportion of infected individuals in %) among amphipod populations/sampling sites and their bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals in the different MOTUs sampled and for the three acanthocephalan species, separately and overall (all three parasites grouped). Overall prevalences in MOTUs assigned different letters are significantly different at the 0.05 level.
Fig. 3Mean parasite abundances (mean number of acanthocephalan larvae per individual host) among amphipod populations/sampling sites and their bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals in the different MOTUs sampled and for the three acanthocephalan species, separately and overall (all three parasites grouped). Overall abundances in MOTUs assigned different letters are significantly different at the 0.05 level.
Fig. 4Parasite abundance as a function of amphipod body size (used as a proxy for age) in each of the 8 amphipod MOTUs. The polynomial effect of body size on parasite abundance is modeled with a general mixed effect linear model with a Poisson distribution and a log link function. The y axis is in log scale for representation purposes. Body size is rescaled to initial values in the graph for representation purposes. Predicted curves are represented in plain black lines with their standard errors in dotted lines.
Parameter estimates for the polynomial effect of amphipod host body size on parasite abundance among MOTUs. P-values presented next to β1 and β2 estimates test their significant difference from zero. P-values from pairwise comparisons of parameter estimates among MOTUs are also provided in the right part of the table; differences in β1 and β2 estimates are presented below and above the matrix diagonal, respectively. Significant differences are indicated in bold.
| MOTU | Parameters | Multiple comparisons | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Int (S.E.) | β1 size (S.E.) | P-value | β2 size2 (S.E.) | P-value | Gf-I | Gf-II | Gf-III | Gf-VI | Gf-VII | Gf-VIII | Gp-D | Gr | ||||
| Gf-I | −1.71 | (0.24) | −0.17 | (0.13) | −0.4 | (0.11) | 0.99 | 0.06 | 0.94 | 0.71 | ||||||
| Gf-II | −0.31 | (0.26) | −0.04 | (0.1) | 0.07 | −0.51 | (0.1) | 0.96 | 0.09 | 0.99 | 0.99 | |||||
| Gf-III | −1.21 | (0.24) | 0.34 | (0.05) | −0.19 | (0.05) | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.61 | 0.91 | ||||||
| Gf-VI | 0.23 | (0.3) | −0.51 | (0.18) | −0.47 | (0.19) | 0.99 | 1 | 0.65 | 0.13 | ||||||
| Gf-VII | −2.31 | (0.34) | 0.07 | (0.34) | 0.61 | −0.61 | (0.38) | 0.11 | 0.08 | 0.99 | 0.98 | 0.08 | 1 | |||
| Gf-VIII | −0.09 | (0.41) | 0.92 | (0.37) | −0.26 | (0.28) | 0.81 | 0.65 | 0.99 | 0.94 | 0.07 | 0.10 | 0.82 | |||
| Gp-D | −4.00 | (0.29) | −0.15 | (0.16) | 0.30 | 0.02 | (0.09) | 0.82 | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.55 | |||||
| Gr | −2.00 | (0.24) | 0.35 | (0.06) | −0.01 | (0.04) | 0.84 | 0.08 | 0.36 | 0.99 | ||||||
Footnote: Int = when Int is transformed to logit, it represents mean parasite abundance for each MOTU and for amphipod host mean body size in each MOTU.
Probability of false zeros among MOTUs (i.e. the probability that amphipod individuals are uninfected because they did not actually encountered the parasite rather than they resisted infection) and their respective P-values to test their difference from zero. P-values from pairwise comparisons of probability of false zero among MOTUs are also provided in the right part of the table. Significant differences are in indicated in bold.
| MOTU | Parameters | Multiple comparisons | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Int (S.E.) | Probability of false zero | P-value | Gf-I | Gf-II | Gf-III | Gf-VI | Gf-VII | Gf-VIII | Gp-D | ||
| Gf-I | 0.14 | (0.41) | 0.54 | 0.73 | |||||||
| Gf-II | −0.64 | (0.65) | 0.34 | 0.32 | |||||||
| Gf-III | −0.02 | (0.41) | 0.49 | 0.94 | 0.41 | 0.09 | |||||
| Gf-VI | −1.62 | (1.69) | 0.17 | 0.34 | 0.23 | 0.47 | 0.28 | ||||
| Gf-VII | −2.37 | (7.51) | 0.08 | 0.75 | 0.80 | 0.85 | 0.74 | 0.92 | |||
| Gf-VIII | −13.8 | (1324) | 0 | 0.99 | 0.83 | 0.85 | 0.81 | 0.88 | 0.95 | ||
| Gp-D | 1.90 | (0.39) | 0.87 | 0.56 | 0.99 | ||||||
| Gr | −2.52 | (3.45) | 0.07 | 0.46 | 0.39 | 0.51 | 0.43 | 0.74 | 0.98 | 0.99 | 0.15 |