Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-747cfc64b6-nq4kt Total loading time: 0.164 Render date: 2021-06-16T11:43:05.357Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

Article contents

The evolution of host specificity in dove body lice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2011

KEVIN P. JOHNSON
Affiliation:
Illinois Natural History Survey, University of Illinois, 1816 South Oak Street, Champaign, IL, USA 61820
JASON D. WECKSTEIN
Affiliation:
Field Museum of Natural History, Zoology-Birds, 1400 S. Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, IL, USA 60605
SARAH E. BUSH
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, University of Utah, 257 South 1400 East, Salt Lake City, UT, USA 84112
DALE H. CLAYTON
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, University of Utah, 257 South 1400 East, Salt Lake City, UT, USA 84112
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Summary

Objective: Conventional wisdom suggests that parasites evolve increased host specialization over time. Host specificity, which describes the number of host species parasitized, is one aspect of host specialization. Recent studies of vertebrate parasites indicate that highly host-specific parasite lineages are not, in fact, evolutionary dead ends; host generalists can evolve from host specialists.

Methods: Using phylogenetic reconstruction methods, we evaluate these patterns in the body lice (Insecta: Phthiraptera) of pigeons and doves, which are permanent ectoparasites that complete their entire life cycle on the body of the host.

Results: We find that species of body lice that parasitize more than one species of host (generalists) are invariably derived from lice parasitizing only one species of host (specialists). A previous study of the wing lice of pigeons and doves also found that generalists were derived from specialists, and that these changes were correlated with the presence of a potentially competing species of wing louse on the same host. For body lice we did not find such a correlation with competition. Instead, the evolution of host generalists in body lice was correlated with host ecology. When we compared body lice that parasitize terrestrial versus arboreal hosts, we found that the evolution of host generalists was associated with terrestrial hosts. In contrast, wing lice showed no correlation between the evolution of generalists and host ecology.

Conclusion: The correlation in body lice suggests that dispersal between host species may occur via the ground. This, in turn, suggests that body lice may fall to the ground more often than wing lice. To test this hypothesis, we conducted an experiment to compare the rate at which body and wing lice are dislodged from the bodies of preening pigeons. Interestingly, our results showed that body lice are dislodged four times more often than wing lice. Therefore, species of terrestrial doves are far more likely to encounter body lice than wing lice on the ground.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Bush, S. E. (2004). Evolutionary Ecology of Host Specificity in Columbiform Feather Lice. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Biology, University of Utah, xvi+275pp.Google Scholar
Bush, S. E. and Clayton, D. H. (2006). The role of body size in host specificity: Reciprocal transfer experiments with feather lice. Evolution 60, 21582167.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bush, S. E., Sohn, E. and Clayton, D. H. (2006). Ecomorphology of parasite attachment: experiments with feather lice. Journal of Parasitology 92, 2531.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bush, S. E. and Malenke, J. R. (2008). Host defence mediates interspecific competition in ectoparasites. Journal of Animal Ecology 77, 558564.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clayton, D. H. (1991). Coevolution of avian grooming and ectoparasite avoidance. In Loye, J. E. and Zuk, M. (eds.), Bird-Parasite Interactions: Ecology, Evolution, and Behaviour. Pp. 258289. Oxford University Press, Oxford, England.Google Scholar
Clayton, D. H., Bush, S. E., Goates, B. M. and Johnson, K. P. (2003). Host defense reinforces host-parasite cospeciation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 100, 1569415699.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clayton, D. H. and Drown, D. M. (2001). Critical evaluation of five methods for quantifying chewing lice (Insecta: Phthiraptera). Journal of Parasitology 87, 12911300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayton, D. H., Koop, J. A. H., Harbison, C. W., Moyer, B. R. and Bush, S. E. (2010). How birds combat ectoparasites. Open Ornithology Journal 3, 4171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayton, D. H., Lee, P. L. M., Tompkins, D. M. and Brodie, E. D. III. (1999). Reciprocal natural selection on host-parasite phenotypes. American Naturalist 154, 261270.Google ScholarPubMed
Clayton, D. H., Moyer, B. R., Bush, S. E., Gardiner, D., Rhodes, B., Jones, T. and Goller, F. (2005). Adaptive significance of avian beak morphology for ectoparasite control. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 272, 811817.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cope, E. D. (1896). The Primary Factors of Organic Evolution. Open Court Publishing Co., Chicago.Google Scholar
del Hoyo, J., Elliot, A. and Sargatal, J. (eds). (1997). Handbook of the Birds of the World, v. 4: Sandgrouse to Cuckoos. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
Gibbs, D., Barnes, E. and Cox, J. (2001). Pigeons and Doves: A Guide to the Pigeons and Doves of the World. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.Google Scholar
Harbison, C. W., Bush, S. E., Malenke, J. R. and Clayton, D. H. (2008). Comparative transmission dynamics of competing parasite species. Ecology 89, 31863194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harbison, C. W., Jacobsen, M. V. and Clayton, D. H. (2009). Hitchhiker's guide to parasite transmission: phoretic behavior of feather lice. International Journal for Parasitology 39, 569575.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Humphery-Smith, I. (1989). The evolution of phylogenetic specificity among parasitic organisms. Parasitology Today 5, 385387.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huxley, J. (1942). Evolution: The Modern Synthesis. George Allen and Unwin, London.Google Scholar
Johnson, K. P., Bush, S. E. and Clayton, D. H. (2005). Correlated evolution of host and parasite body size: tests of Harrison's Rule using birds and lice. Evolution 59, 17441753.Google ScholarPubMed
Johnson, K. P. and Clayton, D. H. (2003). Coevolutionary history of ecological replicates: Comparing phylogenies of wing and body lice to columbiform hosts. In Tangled Trees: Phylogeny, Cospeciation, and Coevolution. (ed. Page, R. D. M.), pp. 262286. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Johnson, K. P., Malenke, J. R. and Clayton, D. H. (2009). Competition promotes the evolution of host generalists in obligate parasites. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 276, 39213926.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, K. P., Weckstein, J. D., Meyer, M. J. and Clayton, D. H. (2011). There and back again: switching between host orders by avian body lice (Ischnocera: Goniodidae). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society (in press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, K. P., Williams, B. L., Drown, D. M., Adams, R. J. and Clayton, D. H. (2002). The population genetics of host specificity: Genetic differentiation in dove lice (Insecta: Phthiraptera). Molecular Ecology 11, 2538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keirans, J. E. (1975). A review of the phoretic relationship between Mallophaga (Phthiraptera: Insecta) and Hippoboscidae (Diptera: Insecta). Journal of Medical Entomology 12, 7176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelley, S. T. and Farrell, B. D. (1998). Is specialization a dead end? The phylogeny of host use in Dendroctonus bark beetles (Scolytidae). Evolution 52, 17311743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maddison, W. P. (1990). A method for testing the correlated evolution of two binary characters: are gains or losses concentrated on certain branches of a phylogenetic tree? Evolution 44, 539557.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maddison, W. P. and Maddison, D. R. (1999). MacClade: Analysis of phylogeny and character evolution, v. 3.08. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Maddison, W. P. and Slatkin, M. (1991). Null models for the number of evolutionary steps in a character on a phylogenetic tree. Evolution 45, 11841197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malenke, J. R., Newbold, N. and Clayton, D. H. (2011). Condition-specific competition governs the geographic distribution and diversity of ectoparasites. American Naturalist (in press).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mayr, E. (1963). Animal Species and Evolution. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moyer, B. R., Drown, D. M. and Clayton, D. H. (2002). Low humidity reduces ectoparasite pressure: implications for host life history evolution. Oikos 97, 223228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nosil, P. (2002). Transition rates between specialization and generalization in phytophagous insects. Evolution 56, 17011706.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Page, R. D. M. (2003). Tangled Trees: Phylogeny, Cospeciation, and Coevolution. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, USA.Google Scholar
Poulin, R. (2007) Evolutionary Ecology of Parasites, 2nd ed. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA.Google Scholar
Poulin, R., Krasnov, B. R., Shenbrot, G. I, Mouillot, D. and Khoklhova, I. S. (2006). Evolution of host specificity in fleas: Is it directional and irreversible? International Journal for Parasitology 36, 185191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Price, R. D., Hellenthal, R. A., Palma, R. L., Johnson, K. P. and Clayton, D. H. (2003). The Chewing Lice: World Checklist and Biological Overview. Illinois Natural History Survey Special Publication 24, 501 pp.Google Scholar
Simkova, A., Verneau, O., Gelnar, M. and Morand, S. (2006). Specificity and specialization of congeneric monogeneans parasitizing cyprinid fish. Evolution 60, 10231037.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tilman, D. (1994). Competition and biodiversity in spatially structured habitats. Ecology 75, 216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The evolution of host specificity in dove body lice
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

The evolution of host specificity in dove body lice
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

The evolution of host specificity in dove body lice
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *