Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-05T17:19:49.533Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The dynamics of infection of Tribolium confusum by Hymenolepis diminuta: the influence of infective-stage density and spatial distribution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

Anne E. Keymer  and
R. M. Anderson
Anne E. Keymer
Affiliation:
Zoology Department, Imperial College, London University, Prince Consort Road, London SW7 2BB
R. M. Anderson
Affiliation:
Zoology Department, Imperial College, London University, Prince Consort Road, London SW7 2BB
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The mean parasite burden of a population of Tribolium confusum is shown to rise to a plateau as the exposure density of infective eggs of Hymenolepis diminuta increases. The level of this plateau is shown to be dependent on the nutritional status of the host population, being depressed from approximately 18 cysticercoids/beetle in hosts which have been starved prior to experimentation, to approximately 2 cysticercoids/beetle in satiated hosts. A simple model is used to describe the shape of this infection functional response in terms of the predator–prey interaction between hosts (T. confusum) and parasite infective stages (H. diminuta eggs). The distribution of successful infections/host is shown to be over-dispersed, even when hosts are exposed to infective stages arranged in a uniform spatial pattern. The over-dispersion of parasite numbers/host is shown to become more severe as the spatial pattern of infective stages changes from under-dispersed, through random, to over-dispersed. Experimental results are discussed in relation to the dynamics of parasite–host interactions, in which infection takes place by host ingestion of a free-living infective stage.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 79 , Issue 2 , October 1979 , pp. 195 - 207
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, R. M. (1978 a). The regulation of host population growth by parasitic species. Parasitology 76, 119–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, R. M. (1978 b). Population dynamics of snail infection by miracidia. Parasitology 77, 201–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, R. M. (1979). The influence of parasitic infection on the dynamics of host population growth. In Population Dynamics (ed. Anderson, R. M., Turner, B. D. and Taylor, R. A.). British Ecological Society Symposium. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications.Google Scholar
Anderson, R. M. & Lethbridge, R. C. (1975). An experimental study of the survival characteristics, activity and energy reserves of the hexacanths of Hymenolepis diminuta. Parasitology 71, 137–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, R. M. & May, R. M. (1978). Regulation and stability of host–parasite population interactions. I. Regulatory processes. Journal of Animal Ecology 47, 219–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, R. M. & Whitfield, P. J. (1975). Survival characteristics of the free living cercarial population of the ectoparasitic digenean Transversotrema patialensis (Soparker, 1924). Parasitology 70, 295–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, R. M., Whitfield, P. J. & Dobson, A. P. (1978). Experimental studies of infection dynamics: infection of the definitive host by the cercariae of Transversotrema patialense. Parasitology 77, 189–200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berntzen, A. K. & Voge, M. (1965). In vitro hatching of oncospheres of four hymenolepid cestodes. Journal of Parasitology 51, 235–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conway, G. R., Glass, N. R. & Wilcox, J. C. (1970). Fitting non-linear models to biological data by Marquardts' algarithm. Ecology 51, 503–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crofton, H. D. (1971 a). A quantitative approach to parasitism. Parasitology 62, 179–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crofton, H. D. (1971 b). A model of host–parasite relationships. Parasitology 63, 343–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunkley, L. C. & Mettrick, D. F. (1971). Factors affecting the susceptibility of the Beetle Tribolium confusum to infection by Hymenolepis diminuta. Journal of the New York Entomological Society 79, 133–8.Google Scholar
Hassell, M. P., Lawton, J. H. & Beddington, J. R. (1976). The components of arthropod predation. I. The prey death rate. Journal of Animal Ecology 45, 135–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holling, C. S. (1965). The functional response of predation to prey density and its role in mimicry and population regulation. Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada 45, 1–60.Google Scholar
Ivlev, V. S. (1961). Experimental Ecology of the Feeding of Fishes. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Lethbridge, R. C. (1971). The hatching of Hymenolepis diminuta eggs and penetration of the hexacanths in Tenebrio molitor beetles. Parasitology 62, 445–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rogers, D. (1972). Random search and insect population models. Journal of Animal Ecology 41, 369–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soltice, G. E., Arai, H. P. & Scheinberg, E. (1971). Host–parasite interactions of Tribolium confusum and Tribolium castaneum with Hymenolepis diminuta. Canadian Journal of Zoology 49, 265–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Voge, M. & Berntzen, A. K. (1961). In vitro hatching of oncospheres of Hymenolepis diminuta (Cestoda: Cyclophyllidea). Journal of Parasitology 47, 813–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Voge, M. & Graiwer, M. (1964). Development of oncospheres of Hymenolepis diminuta, hatched in vivo and in vitro, in the larvae of Tenebrio molitor. Journal of Parasitology 50, 267–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed