Interactions between Interactions

Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Unité Mixte de Recherche 7103, Laboratoire de Parasitologie Evolutive, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris, France.
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (Impact Factor: 4.38). 07/2008; 1133(1):180-6. DOI: 10.1196/annals.1438.007
Source: PubMed


Ecological interactions such as those between predators and prey, parasites and hosts, and pollinators and plants are usually studied on their own while neglecting that one category of interactions can have dramatic effects on another. Such interactions between interactions will have both ecological and evolutionary effects because the actions of one party will influence interactions among other parties, thereby eventually causing feedback on the first party. Examples of such interactions include the effects of predators and parasites on the evolution of host sexual selection, the effects of parasites and predators on the evolution of virulence, and the effects of parasites and predators on the evolution of pollinator mutualisms. Such interactions among interactions will generally prevent simple cases of coevolution, because any single case of interaction between two parties may be affected by an entire range of additional interacting factors. These phenomena will have implications not only for how ecologists and evolutionary biologists empirically study interactions but also on how such interactions are modeled.

Download full-text


Available from: Anders Pape Moller, Aug 25, 2014
1 Follower
  • Source
    • "Abrams 1991; Lima 1998; Lima & Dill 1990), the mere presence of a predator can lower levels of immunity and subsequently lead to an increase in prevalence and intensity of parasitism (Navarro et al. 2004), which in turn may increase the risk of predation. Thus, predator effects on prey populations may be both direct and indirect, and they may interact with other interspecific interactions (Møller 2008). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 1. Predators often prey on individuals that are sick or otherwise weakened. Although previous studies have shown higher abundance of parasites in prey, whether prey have elevated loads of micro-organisms remains to be determined. 2. We quantified the abundance of bacteria and fungi on feathers of woodpigeons Columba palumbus L., jays Garrulus glandarius L. and blackbirds Turdus merula L. that either fell prey to goshawks Accipiter gentilis L. or were not depredated. 3. We found an almost three-fold increase in bacterial load of prey compared with non-prey, while there was no significant difference between prey and non-prey in level of fungal infection of the plumage. 4. The results were not confounded by differences in size or mass of feathers, date of collection of feathers, or date of analysis of feathers for micro-organisms. 5. These findings suggest a previously unknown contribution of bacteria to risk of predation, with important implications for behaviour, population ecology and community ecology.
    Journal of Animal Ecology 03/2012; 81(2):403-10. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2656.2011.01923.x · 4.50 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Many parasites apparently change the behavior of their hosts in a way that seemingly increase the probability of successful reproduction and transmission, suggesting that parasites somehow are able to manipulate the behavior of hosts to their own advantage. Such adaptive manipulation implies that [1] different roles are played by manipulated and manipulator individuals; [2] manipulation reduces the fitness of the manipulated individual; [3] the manipulator gains a fitness advantage; and [4] this order of events should hold up when analyzed in a phylogenetic context. While some ex-amples of parasite-host interactions are consistent with some of these criteria, there is little strict evidence consistent with all four criteria. Parasite manipulation of vertebrate hosts may differ from that of invertebrates because of differences in cognitive ability, and complexity of the parasite community. Literature on avian brood parasites and their hosts suggests that hosts may be fully aware of their parasitism status. Using studies of the great spotted cuckoo and its magpie host I ar-gue that parasitized hosts probably are doing the best they can, given their status, and that their fitness pay-offs would be even worse if they produced higher levels of resistance. Next, I argue that hosts in general may be aware of their infection status, and that each host individual interacts with so many different parasites, each with their 'own' evolutionary inter-ests, that hosts are unlikely to behave only in response to any single parasite. Rather, host behavior could be considered to reflect a compromise between the evolutionary interests of all the inhabitants of a given host individual. Therefore, it might be difficult to argue that hosts are manipulated by parasites, and I suggest that we may learn more about parasite-host interactions by quantifying the evolutionary interests of hosts and their multitude of parasites, amensals and commen-sals, and that host behavior may more readily be understood from the point of view of the participants involved in these different interspecific interactions.
    The Open Ornithology Journal 01/2009; 2(1):29-36. DOI:10.2174/1874453201003010086
  • Source
    Trends in Ecology & Evolution 11/2009; 25(3):131; author reply 132. DOI:10.1016/j.tree.2009.10.007 · 16.20 Impact Factor
Show more