Search for: All records

Abstract Supplemental feeding can increase the overall health of animals but also can have variable effects on how animals defend themselves against parasites. However, the spatiotemporal effects of food supplementation on host–parasite interactions remain poorly understood, likely because large‐scale, coordinated efforts to investigate them are difficult.Here, we introduce the Nest Parasite Community Science Project, which is a community‐based science project that coordinates studies with bird nest box ‘stewards’ from the public and scientific community. This project was established to understand broad ecological patterns between hosts and their parasites.The goal of this study was to determine the effect of food supplementation on eastern bluebirds (Sialia sialis) and their nest parasite community across the geographic range of the bluebirds from 2018 to 2021. We received 674 nests from 69 stewards in 26 states in the eastern United States. Nest box stewards reported whether or not they provided mealworms or suet near nesting bluebirds, then they followed the nesting success of the birds (number of eggs laid and hatched, proportion that hatched, number and proportion of nestlings that successfully fledged). We then identified and quantified parasites in the nests.Overall, we found that food supplementation increased fledging success. The most common nest parasite taxon was the parasitic blow fly (Protocalliphora sialia), but a few nests contained fleas (Ceratophyllus idius,C. gallinaeandOrchopeas leucopus) and mites (Dermanyssusspp. andOrnithonyssusspp.). Blow flies were primarily found at northern latitudes, where food supplementation affected blow fly prevalence. However, the direction of this effect varied substantially in direction and magnitude across years. More stewards fed bluebirds at southern latitudes than at northern latitudes, which contradicts the findings of other community‐based science projects.Overall, food supplementation of birds was associated with increased host fitness but did not appear to play a consistent role in defence against these parasites across all years. Our study demonstrates the importance of coordinated studies across years and locations to understand the effects of environmental heterogeneity, including human‐based food supplementation, on host–parasite dynamics. 

Abstract The prevalence and intensity of parasites in wild hosts varies across space and is a key determinant of infection risk in humans, domestic animals and threatened wildlife. Because the immune system serves as the primary barrier to infection, replication and transmission following exposure, we here consider the environmental drivers of immunity. Spatial variation in parasite pressure, abiotic and biotic conditions, and anthropogenic factors can all shape immunity across spatial scales. Identifying the most important spatial drivers of immunity could help pre‐empt infectious disease risks, especially in the context of how large‐scale factors such as urbanization affect defence by changing environmental conditions.We provide a synthesis of how to apply macroecological approaches to the study of ecoimmunology (i.e. macroimmunology). We first review spatial factors that could generate spatial variation in defence, highlighting the need for large‐scale studies that can differentiate competing environmental predictors of immunity and detailing contexts where this approach might be favoured over small‐scale experimental studies. We next conduct a systematic review of the literature to assess the frequency of spatial studies and to classify them according to taxa, immune measures, spatial replication and extent, and statistical methods.We review 210 ecoimmunology studies sampling multiple host populations. We show that whereas spatial approaches are relatively common, spatial replication is generally low and unlikely to provide sufficient environmental variation or power to differentiate competing spatial hypotheses. We also highlight statistical biases in macroimmunology, in that few studies characterize and account for spatial dependence statistically, potentially affecting inferences for the relationships between environmental conditions and immune defence.We use these findings to describe tools from geostatistics and spatial modelling that can improve inference about the associations between environmental and immunological variation. In particular, we emphasize exploratory tools that can guide spatial sampling and highlight the need for greater use of mixed‐effects models that account for spatial variability while also allowing researchers to account for both individual‐ and habitat‐level covariates.We finally discuss future research priorities for macroimmunology, including focusing on latitudinal gradients, range expansions and urbanization as being especially amenable to large‐scale spatial approaches. Methodologically, we highlight critical opportunities posed by assessing spatial variation in host tolerance, using metagenomics to quantify spatial variation in parasite pressure, coupling large‐scale field studies with small‐scale field experiments and longitudinal approaches, and applying statistical tools from macroecology and meta‐analysis to identify generalizable spatial patterns. Such work will facilitate scaling ecoimmunology from individual‐ to habitat‐level insights about the drivers of immune defence and help predict where environmental change may most alter infectious disease risk.