Disease ecologists now recognize the limitation behind examining host–parasite interactions in isolation: community members—especially predators—dramatically affect host–parasite dynamics. Although the initial paradigm was that predation should reduce disease in prey populations (“healthy herds hypothesis”), researchers have realized that predators sometimes increase disease in their prey. These “predator–spreaders” are now recognized as critical to disease dynamics, but empirical research on the topic remains fragmented. In a narrow sense, a “predator–spreader” would be defined as a predator that mechanically spreads parasites via feeding. However, predators affect their prey and, subsequently, disease transmission in many other ways such as altering prey population structure, behavior, and physiology. We review the existing evidence for these mechanisms and provide heuristics that incorporate features of the host, predator, parasite, and environment to understand whether or not a predator is likely to be a predator–spreader. We also provide guidance for targeted study of each mechanism and quantifying the effects of predators on parasitism in a way that yields more general insights into the factors that promote predator spreading. We aim to offer a better understanding of this important and underappreciated interaction and a path toward being able to predict how changes in predation will influence parasite dynamics.
more » « less- PAR ID:
- 10403797
- Publisher / Repository:
- Wiley Blackwell (John Wiley & Sons)
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Ecology and Evolution
- Volume:
- 13
- Issue:
- 3
- ISSN:
- 2045-7758
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
Predators and parasites are critical, interconnected members of the community and have the potential to shape host populations. Predators, in particular, can have direct and indirect impacts on disease dynamics. By removing hosts and their parasites, predators alter both host and parasite populations and ultimately shape disease transmission. Selective predation of infected hosts has received considerable attention as it is recognized to have important ecological implications. The occurrence and consequences of preferential consumption of uninfected hosts, however, has rarely been considered. Here, we synthesize current evidence suggesting this strategy of selectively predating uninfected individuals is likely more common than previously anticipated and address how including this predation strategy can change our understanding of the ecology and evolution of disease dynamics. Selective predation strategies are expected to differentially impact ecological dynamics and therefore, consideration of both strategies is required to fully understand the impact of predation on prey and host densities. In addition, given that different strategies of prey selectivity by predators change the fitness payoffs both for hosts and their parasites, we predict amplified coevolutionary rates under selective predation of infected hosts compared to uninfected hosts. Using recent work highlighting the critical role that predators play in disease dynamics, we provide insights into the potential mechanisms by which selective predation on healthy individuals can directly affect ecological outcomes and impact long‐term host–parasite coevolution. We contrast the consequences of both scenarios of selective predation while identifying current gaps in the literature and future research directions.more » « less
-
Abstract Landscapes of fear can determine the dynamics of entire ecosystems. In response to perceived predation risk, prey can show physiological, behavioral, or morphological trait changes to avoid predation. This in turn can indirectly affect other species by modifying species interactions (e.g., altered feeding), with knock‐on effects, such as trophic cascades, on the wider ecosystem. While such indirect effects stemming from the fear of predation have received extensive attention for herbivore–plant and predator–prey interactions, much less is known about how they alter parasite–host interactions and wildlife diseases. In this synthesis, we present a conceptual framework for how predation risk—as perceived by organisms that serve as hosts—can affect parasite–host interactions, with implications for infectious disease dynamics. By basing our approach on recent conceptual advances with respect to predation risk effects, we aim to expand this general framework to include parasite–host interactions and diseases. We further identify pathways through which parasite–host interactions can be affected, for example, through altered parasite avoidance behavior or tolerance of hosts to infections, and discuss the wider relevance of predation risk for parasite and host populations, including heuristic projections to population‐level dynamics. Finally, we highlight the current unknowns, specifically the quantitative links from individual‐level processes to population dynamics and community structure, and emphasize approaches to address these knowledge gaps.
-
Abstract The healthy herds hypothesis proposes that predators can reduce parasite prevalence and thereby increase the density of their prey. However, evidence for such predator‐driven reductions in the prevalence of prey remains mixed. Furthermore, even less evidence supports increases in prey density during epidemics. Here, we used a planktonic predator–prey–parasite system to experimentally test the healthy herds hypothesis. We manipulated density of a predator (the phantom midge,
Chaoborus punctipennis ) and parasitism (the virulent fungusMetschnikowia bicuspidata ) in experimental assemblages. Because we know natural populations of the prey (Daphnia dentifera ) vary in susceptibility to both predator and parasite, we stocked experimental populations with nine genotypes spanning a broad range of susceptibility to both enemies. Predation significantly reduced infection prevalence, eliminating infection at the highest predation level. However, lower parasitism did not increase densities of prey; instead, prey density decreased substantially at the highest predation levels (a major density cost of healthy herds predation). This density result was predicted by a model parameterized for this system. The model specifies three conditions for predation to increase prey density during epidemics: (i) predators selectively feed on infected prey, (ii) consumed infected prey release fewer infectious propagules than unconsumed prey, and (iii) sufficiently low infection prevalence. While the system satisfied the first two conditions, prevalence remained too high to see an increase in prey density with predation. Low prey densities caused by high predation drove increases in algal resources of the prey, fueling greater reproduction, indicating that consumer–resource interactions can complicate predator–prey–parasite dynamics. Overall, in our experiment, predation reduced the prevalence of a virulent parasite but, at the highest levels, also reduced prey density. Hence, while healthy herds predation is possible under some conditions, our empirical results make it clear that the manipulation of predators to reduce parasite prevalence may harm prey density. -
ABSTRACT Predation can alter diverse ecological processes, including host–parasite interactions. Selective predation, whereby predators preferentially feed on certain prey types, can affect prey density and selective pressures. Studies on selective predation in infected populations have primarily focused on predators preferentially feeding on infected prey. However, there is substantial evidence that some predators preferentially consume uninfected individuals. Such different strategies of prey selectivity likely modulate host–parasite interactions, changing the fitness payoffs both for hosts and their parasites. Here we investigated the effects of different types of selective predation on infection dynamics and host evolution. We used a host–parasite system in the laboratory (
Daphnia dentifera infected with the horizontally transmitted fungus, ) to artificially manipulate selective predation by removing infected, uninfected, or randomly selected prey over approximately 8–9 overlapping generations. We collected weekly data on population demographics and host infection and measured susceptibility from a subset of the remaining hosts in each population at the end of the experiment. After 6 weeks of selective predation pressure, we found no differences in host abundance or infection prevalence across predation treatments. Counterintuitively, populations with selective predation on infected individuals had a higher abundance of infected individuals than populations where either uninfected or randomly selected individuals were removed. Additionally, populations with selective predation for uninfected individuals had a higher proportion of individuals infected after a standardized exposure to the parasite than individuals from the two other predation treatments. These results suggest that selective predation can alter the abundance of infected hosts and host evolution.Metschnikowia bicuspidata -
null (Ed.)Research on the ‘ecology of fear’ posits that defensive prey responses to avoid predation can cause non-lethal effects across ecological scales. Parasites also elicit defensive responses in hosts with associated non-lethal effects, which raises the longstanding, yet unresolved question of how non-lethal effects of parasites compare with those of predators. We developed a framework for systematically answering this question for all types of predator–prey and host–parasite systems. Our framework reveals likely differences in non-lethal effects not only between predators and parasites, but also between different types of predators and parasites. Trait responses should be strongest towards predators, parasitoids and parasitic castrators, but more numerous and perhaps more frequent for parasites than for predators. In a case study of larval amphibians, whose trait responses to both predators and parasites have been relatively well studied, existing data indicate that individuals generally respond more strongly and proactively to short-term predation risks than to parasitism. Apart from studies using amphibians, there have been few direct comparisons of responses to predation and parasitism, and none have incorporated responses to micropredators, parasitoids or parasitic castrators, or examined their long-term consequences. Addressing these and other data gaps highlighted by our framework can advance the field towards understanding how non-lethal effects impact prey/host population dynamics and shape food webs that contain multiple predator and parasite species.more » « less