Literature DB >> 7854853

Niche restriction in parasites: proximate and ultimate causes.

K Rohde1.   

Abstract

Hutchinson's (1957) definition of an ecological niche as a multidimensional hypervolume determined by a number of physical and biotic variables is adopted. The number of niche dimensions is very great, but as a working hypothesis it is assumed that a few are sufficient to characterize the niche of a parasite species to a high degree of accuracy. They are host species, microhabitat(s), macrohabitat(s), geographical range, sex and age of host, season, food and hyperparasites. Methods to measure niche width, in particular specificity indices, are discussed, and some examples of niche restriction are described. Proximate and ultimate causes of niche restriction are discussed, mainly using marine parasites as examples. Among proximate causes of one niche dimension, host specificity, are ecological factors restricting exposure to infection to certain host species; host-specific chemical factors that induce hatching, direct infective stages to a host and bring about settlement of a parasite; factors that lead to mortality in or on the wrong host; morphological adaptations that guarantee survival in or on the 'correct' host; and availability of suitable hosts. Many factors are likely to be responsible for microhabitat specificity, but have been little studied, except for some physiological and morphological adaptations to particular microhabitats. Macrohabitats and geographical range may be determined by the distribution of intermediate hosts and certain food items, and by a variety of chemical and physical factors. Hosts of different sexes may differ in feeding habits and the composition of the skin, and thus acquire parasites differentially. Hosts of different age may be differentially infected due to accumulation of parasites with age, loss of parasites due to developing resistance (or immunity), and different size and feeding habits. Among ultimate causes of niche restriction and segregation are avoidance of competition, predation and hyperparasites; facilitation of mating; reinforcement of reproductive barriers; and adaptations to environmental complexity. Few studies permit a decision on which factor or factors are responsible in particular cases. Interspecific competition may play a greater role in helminth communities of some host groups than of others, but it seems that, overall, its role has been exaggerated at least for marine parasites. Some 'classical' examples of microhabitat segregation explained by interspecific competition can also be explained by reinforcement of reproductive barriers. There is evidence for the importance of facilitation of mating in microhabitat restriction, and the availability of many vacant niches indicates that competition, overall, is not of great importance.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 7854853     DOI: 10.1017/s0031182000085097

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Parasitology        ISSN: 0031-1820            Impact factor:   3.234


  18 in total

1.  Reproductive barriers between congeneric monogenean parasites (Dactylogyrus: Monogenea): attachment apparatus morphology or copulatory organ incompatibility?

Authors:  Jirí Jarkovský; Serge Morand; Andrea Simková; Milan Gelnar
Journal:  Parasitol Res       Date:  2003-11-11       Impact factor: 2.289

2.  A symbiont's dispersal strategy: condition-dependent dispersal underlies predictable variation in direct transmission among hosts.

Authors:  James Skelton; Robert P Creed; Bryan L Brown
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2015-11-22       Impact factor: 5.349

3.  Spatial distribution of ectoparasites on the gills of the mullet, Liza macrolepis: the effects of pollution.

Authors:  Ruchika Kumar; Rokkam Madhavi; Bade Sailaja
Journal:  J Parasit Dis       Date:  2016-01-13

4.  Temporal variation of the cestode, Cotugnia cuneata (Meggit, 1924) in their host, domestic pigeons, Columba livia domestica (Gmelin, 1789).

Authors:  Debraj Biswal; Anadi Prasad Nandi; Soumendranath Chatterjee
Journal:  J Parasit Dis       Date:  2013-06-08

5.  Is a vertebrate a better host for a parasite than an invertebrate host? Fecundity of Proctoeces cf lintoni (Digenea: Fellodistomidae), a parasite of fish and gastropods in northern Chile.

Authors:  Marcelo Enrique Oliva; Carlos Alvarez
Journal:  Parasitol Res       Date:  2011-06-17       Impact factor: 2.289

6.  Microhabitat preference, body size, and egg allocation in the gill parasite Naobranchia lizae (Copepoda).

Authors:  Sara R Teemer; Isaure de Buron; Chelsea V Gacula; Timothy C Sparkes
Journal:  Parasitol Res       Date:  2020-03-03       Impact factor: 2.289

7.  Spatial heterogeneity in parasite infections at different spatial scales in an intertidal bivalve.

Authors:  David W Thieltges; Karsten Reise
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2006-09-27       Impact factor: 3.225

8.  First report on the diversity and distribution of parasitic monogenoids (Platyhelminthes) from catfishes (Siluriformes) in Arunachal Pradesh, India.

Authors:  Leki Wangchu; Dobiam Narba; Chawan Matey; Amit Tripathi
Journal:  J Parasit Dis       Date:  2021-09-12

9.  Metazoan ectoparasites of Atlantic mackerel, Scomber scombrus (Teleostei: Scombridae): macro- and microhabitat distribution.

Authors:  Ricardo Castro; Maria João Santos
Journal:  Parasitol Res       Date:  2013-08-03       Impact factor: 2.289

10.  The occurrence of parasitic copepods and isopods infesting the marine teleost fishes of Kerala coast, India.

Authors:  Thasnim S Nizar; Megha Raveendran; Sisira Chenkayi Parambil; Sudha Kappalli
Journal:  J Parasit Dis       Date:  2020-09-30
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.