Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m8s7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T06:25:22.773Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Behavioural aspects of the ecology of the sand martin flea Ceratophyllus styx jordani Smit (Siphonaptera)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

David A. Humphries
David A. Humphries
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, University of Aston in Birmingham, Birmingham 4
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The behaviour of the sand martin flea Ceratophyllus styx jordani Smit was studied in relation to its ecology.

The cocooned resting imago in the host's old nest is the main over-wintering stage. Mechanical disturbance of the cocoons by the exploratory habits of the newly returned sand martins elicits emergence of the imagines in spring. The seasonal rise in temperature is not, by itself, important in causing emergence, as it does not become effective until many weeks after the martins have returned, by which time undisturbed fleas are likely to have died inside their cocoons.

When the imagines break out of their cocoons they are negatively photo-tactic, but become positively phototactic within 24 h. This response takes them outwards along the martin's disused burrow until the increasing intensity of light reduces their activity so that they aggregate on the lower lip of the entrance. Positive phototaxis prevents them dispersing downwards from the entrance.

Periodically the fleas bury themselves in sand; this response may function for water conservation. The proportion buried is greatest at night.

The sand martin's habit of hovering close to a succession of entrances renders it accessible to the fleas, whose main host-finding response is an outward jump from the burrow entrance. This jump is released by a sudden decrease in light intensity and is directed towards dark objects. Vibration and air currents do not release jumping.

Dispersal from aggregations in disused burrows may occur by transport on the host, or by spontaneous horizontal emigration along the cliff face, or by falling after an unsuccessful host-finding jump. Fleas which have fallen become negatively geotactic and positively anemotactic. Fleas wandering on the cliff face visually detect burrow entrances up to 30 cm away, and turn towards them. Preference for moister sand and, possibly, a negative phototactic response, may induce the fleas to remain in newly found burrows.

Small aggregations of fleas also occur at the entrances of burrows currently in use by martins. Fleas circulate between the entrance and nest chamber of these burrows, until the martin begins to incubate its eggs. The entrance aggregation then disappears and fleas accumulate in the nest chamber. There is some interchange of fleas between infested burrows in the martin's pre-incubation period.

The general pattern of behaviour resembles that of C. gallinae. Behavioural differences between the two species are related to the ecology of their hosts. C. styx is adapted to dispersal and host finding in its host's breeding site, whereas C. gallinae is adapted to reach foraging birds. This difference partly accounts for the narrow host specificity of C. styx and the wide host range of C. gallinae.

My grateful thanks are due to Chris. Mead and Giles Pepler for information on sand martins' behaviour and migratory arrival. I would also like to thank Brian Little, who introduced me to several colonies in the Tyne Valley. The valuable advice of the Hon. Miriam Rothschild and Dr E. T. Burtt is especially acknowledged.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 59 , Issue 2 , May 1969 , pp. 311 - 334
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1969

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

Allan, R. M. (1950). Fleas (Siphonaptera) from birds in north-east Scotland. Scott. Nat. 62, 33–41.Google Scholar
Bates, J. K. (1962). Field studies on the behaviour of bird fleas. 1. Behaviour of the adults of three species of bird fleas in the field. Parasitology 52, 113–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennet-Clark, H. C. & Lucey, E. C. A. (1967). The jump of the flea: a study of the energetics and a model of the mechanism. J. exp. Biol. 47, 59–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benton, A. H. & Lee, S. Y. (1965). Sensory reactions of Siphonaptera in relation to host-finding. Am. Midl. Nat. 74, 119–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darskaya, N. F. & Becedina, K. P. (1961). On the possibility of nourishment of fleas by reptiles. Trudy nauchno-issled. protovochumn Inst. Kavkaza i Zakavkaz'ia 5, 33–9.Google Scholar
Evans, W. (1906). Some further records of Siphonaptera (fleas) from the Forth area. Ann. Scot. nat. Hist. (1906), 161–63.Google Scholar
Evans, W. (1910). Notes on Siphonaptera. Ann. Scot. nat. Hist. (1910), 184–85.Google Scholar
George, R. S. (1959). Fleas from nests of the pied flycatcher and other species in the Forest of Dean. Bird Study 6, 132–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guimarães, L. R. (1945). Alguns aspectos bionomicos de Leptopsylla segnis (Schönh) (Suctoria). Archs. Zool. Est. Paulo 4, 233–60.Google Scholar
Hirst, L. F. (1927). Researches on the parasitology of plague. Ceylon J. Sci. (D) 1, 155–455.Google Scholar
Hirst, L. F. (1953). The Conquest of Plague. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humphries, D. A. (1963). The behaviour of certain fleas in relation to their development and ecology. Ph.D. thesis, University of Durham.Google Scholar
Humphries, D. A. (1967 a). The mating behaviour of the hen flea Ceratophyllus gallinae (Schrank) (Siphonaptera: Insecta). Anim. Behav. 15, 82–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Humphries, D. A. (1967 b). Uptake of atmospheric water by the hen flea Ceratophyllus gallinae (Schrank). Nature, Lond. 214, 426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humphries, D. A. (1967 c). Drinking of water by fleas. Ent. mon. Mag. 102, 260–62.Google Scholar
Humphries, D. A. (1968). The host-finding behaviour of the hen flea Ceratophyllus gallinae (Schrank) (Siphonaptera). Parasitology 58, 403–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jolley, A. E. & Storer, R. (1945). Report on the sand martin enquiry 1944. Leicester lit. phil. Soc., ornithological section for Leicestershire and Rutland (Report for 1944), pp. 10–21.Google Scholar
Macleod, J. & Donnelly, J. (1947). Individual and group marking methods for fly-population studies. Bull ent. Res. 48, 585–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothschild, M. (1952). A collection of fleas from the bodies of British birds, with notes on their distribution and host preferences. Bull. Br. Mus. (Nat. Hist.) Ent. 2, 187–232.Google Scholar
Rothschild, M. & Clay, T. (1952). Fleas, Flukes and Cuckoos. A Study of Bird Parasites. London: Collins.Google Scholar
Sgonina, K. (1935). Die Reizphysiologie des Igelflohes (Archaeopsylla erinacei Bouché) und seiner Larve. Z. Parasitenk. 7, 539–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sgonina, K. (1939). Wirtsfindung und Wirtsspezifität von Flöhen. Verh. 7. Int. Kongr. Entomol., Berlin 1938, 3, 1663–8.Google Scholar
Sharif, M. (1948). Effects of constant temperature and humidity on the development of the larvae and pupae of the three Indian species of Xenopsylla (Insecta, Siphonaptera). Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 233, 581–633.Google Scholar
Smit, F. G. A. M. (1957). The recorded distribution and hosts of Siphonaptera in Britain. Ent. Gaz. 8, 45–75.Google Scholar
Thompson, G. B. (1952). The parasites of British birds and mammals, XXIV. Sand-martin's fleas. Ent. mon. Mag. 88, 177–79.Google Scholar
Thompson, G. B. (1953). The parasites of British birds and mammals. XXVI. Further notes on sand-martins' fleas. Ent. mon. Mag. 89, 224–6.Google Scholar
White, G. (1774). Letter XX to the Hon. Daines Barrington. The Natural History of Selborne. Penguin edition, 1941.Google Scholar
Wigglesworth, V. B. (1965). The Principles of Insect Physiology. London: Methuen.Google Scholar