Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-4hvwz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-25T14:52:26.090Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the relevance of abundance and spatial pattern for interpretations of host–parasite association data

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

G.S. Cumming
G.S. Cumming*
Affiliation:
Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-0430, USA
*
*Fax: 352 392 6984 E-mail: cummingg@wec.ufl.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The quantification of host–parasite associations from field data is a fundamental step towards understanding host–parasite and host-parasite–pathogen dynamics. For parasites that are not rigid host specialists, exemplified in this paper by ticks, the interpretation of host–parasite association data is difficult. Interpretations of tick collection records have largely assumed that off-host collection records offer a valid basis from which to make claims about the host specificity or generality of tick species. A simple simulation analysis of rudimentary tick–host interactions in a hypothetical 50 × 50-cell habitat demonstrates that perceptions of tick–host relationships can be strongly biased by spatial patterns. Regardless of their true level of host specificity or generality, it seems that: (i) more abundant ticks will be perceived as generalists, while rarer species will be considered specialists; and (ii) tick species that have patchy, strongly aggregated distributions will be more likely to be perceived as host specialists than species that have more dispersed or uniform distributions. Since all available evidence suggests that abundances and spatial patterns vary between tick species, there is no way of assessing the true validity of claims about host specificity without first undertaking detailed research on the relative abundances and spatial and temporal patterns of both tick and host distributions.

Type
Review Article
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 94 , Issue 5 , October 2004 , pp. 401 - 409
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2004

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

Aebischer, N.J., Robertson, P.A. & Kenward, R.E. (1993) Compositional analysis of habitat use from animal radio-tracking data. Ecology 74, 1313–1325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, R.M. & May, R.M. (1978) Regulation and stability of host–parasite population interactions. I. Regulatory processes. Journal of Animal Ecology 47, 219–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cumming, G.S. (1998) Host preference in African ticks (Acari: Ixodida): a quantitative data set. Bulletin of Entomological Research 88, 379–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cumming, G.S. (2002) Habitat shape, species invasions, and reserve design: insights from simple models. Conservation Ecology 6 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dipeolu, O.O. & Akinboade, O.A. (1984) Studies on ticks of verterinary importance in Nigeria. XI. Observations on the biology of ticks detached from the red-flanked duiker (Cephalophus rufilatus) and parasites encountered in their blood. Veterinary Parasitology 14, 87–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hargrove, J.W., Torr, S.J. & Kindness, H.M. (2003) Insecticide-treated cattle against tsetse (Diptera: Glossinidae): what governs success? Bulletin of Entomological Research 93, 203–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoogstraal, H. & Aeschlimann, A. (1982) Tick–host specificity. Bulletin de la Société Entomologique Suisse 55, 5–32.Google Scholar
Hudson, P.J., Dobson, A.P. & Newborn, D. (1998) Prevention of population cycles by parasite removal. Science 282, 2256–2258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klompen, J.S.H., Black, W.C., Keirans, J.E. & Oliver, J.H. (1996) Evolution of ticks. Annual Review of Entomology 41, 141–161.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mysterud, A. & Ims, R.A. (1998) Functional responses in habitat use: availability influences relative use in trade-off situations. Ecology 79, 1435–1441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Needham, G.R. & Teal, P.D. (1991) Off-host physiological ecology of ixodid ticks. Annual Review of Entomology 36, 659–681.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ntiamoa-Baidu, Y., Carr-Saunders, C., Matthews, B.E., Preston, P.M. & Walker, A.R. (2004) An updated list of the ticks of Ghana and an assessment of the distribution of the ticks of Ghanaian wild mammals in different vegetation zones. Bulletin of Entomological Research 94, 245–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilman, D. & Kareiva, P. (1997) Spatial ecology: the role of space in population dynamics and interspecific interactions 368 pp. Princeton New Jersey.Google Scholar
Walker, J.B., Kerians, J.E. & Horak, I.G. (2000) The genus Rhipicephalus (Acari, Ixodidae): a guide to the brown ticks of the world. Cambridge University Press. 643 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, A.R. & Koney, E. (1999) Distribution of ticks (Acari: Ixodida) infesting domestic ruminants in Ghana. Bulletin of Entomological Research 89, 473–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar