Host and parasite intervality in differentially human‐modified habitats

Host–parasite interactions are influenced by present and past eco‐evolutionary interactions and the local environment. An ecological community defines the potential host range of each parasite and the potential parasite diversity of each host species. Past and present processes translate potential to realised interaction niches of parasite and host species. Host–parasite interactions are antagonistic, which may slow the saturation of their interaction niches. Intervality, a property of bipartite networks, measures saturation of interaction niches. Intervality of a community increases as the interaction niches of species of one guild (e.g. hosts) become saturated for their interactions with another guild (e.g. parasites). Characteristics driving intervality in host and parasite communities are largely unknown, as well as the effect of environmental change on intervality of these communities. In our study, we assess if the characteristics ‘phylogenetic relatedness' and ‘overlap in ecological interactions' explain intervality of rodent host–helminth parasite communities. In addition, we contrast intervality of these communities from habitats that differ in their history of human‐driven modification. We performed the analyses for the interaction niches of both parasites and hosts, independently. Our results indicated that host and parasite communities were non‐interval or significantly less interval than expected by chance. Phylogenetic relatedness and overlap in ecological interactions did not explain the maximum values of intervality. We speculate that antagonistic coevolution in host–parasite communities may hinder communities to reach saturation, which would explain why it is difficult to find the characteristics that explain intervality of a community. Interestingly, intervality of the interaction niche of parasites (host range) increased with habitat modification (i.e. saturation increased), whereas intervality of the interaction niche of hosts (parasite diversity) decreased as habitat modification increased. These opposite trends suggest that interaction niches of parasites and hosts respond differently to habitat modification.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Oikos
Published
2024-08-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.10446
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Animal Ecology and Behavior Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.46

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Host and parasite intervality in differentially human‐modified habitats

Alexis Ribas, Sergé Morand, Cristina Llopis‐Belenguer, Frida Feijen et al.
1 citations
Oikos
Animal Ecology and Behavior Studies
0.46
article

Host and parasite intervality in differentially human‐modified habitats

Alexis Ribas, Sergé Morand, Cristina Llopis‐Belenguer, Frida Feijen, Kittipong Chaisiri, Jukka Jokela
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Host–parasite interactions are influenced by present and past eco‐evolutionary interactions and the local environment. An ecological community defines the potential host range of each parasite and the potential parasite diversity of each host species. Past and present processes translate potential to realised interaction niches of parasite and host species. Host–parasite interactions are antagonistic, which may slow the saturation of their interaction niches. Intervality, a property of bipartite networks, measures saturation of interaction niches. Intervality of a community increases as the interaction niches of species of one guild (e.g. hosts) become saturated for their interactions with another guild (e.g. parasites). Characteristics driving intervality in host and parasite communities are largely unknown, as well as the effect of environmental change on intervality of these communities. In our study, we assess if the characteristics ‘phylogenetic relatedness' and ‘overlap in ecological interactions' explain intervality of rodent host–helminth parasite communities. In addition, we contrast intervality of these communities from habitats that differ in their history of human‐driven modification. We performed the analyses for the interaction niches of both parasites and hosts, independently. Our results indicated that host and parasite communities were non‐interval or significantly less interval than expected by chance. Phylogenetic relatedness and overlap in ecological interactions did not explain the maximum values of intervality. We speculate that antagonistic coevolution in host–parasite communities may hinder communities to reach saturation, which would explain why it is difficult to find the characteristics that explain intervality of a community. Interestingly, intervality of the interaction niche of parasites (host range) increased with habitat modification (i.e. saturation increased), whereas intervality of the interaction niche of hosts (parasite diversity) decreased as habitat modification increased. These opposite trends suggest that interaction niches of parasites and hosts respond differently to habitat modification.

OikosVol. 2024(12)
Universitat de València (ES), Kasetsart University (TH), Mahidol University (TH), ETH Zurich (CH), Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (CH), Universitat de Barcelona (ES)
European Commission, Universitat de València, Eidgenössische Anstalt für Wasserversorgung Abwasserreinigung und Gewässerschutz, Thailand International Cooperation Agency
Life in Land
Openalex Percentile: Top 30%
Animal Ecology and Behavior Studies
0.46
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.