4.5 Article

Body size and ecological traits in fleas parasitic on small mammals in the Palearctic: larger species attain higher abundance

期刊

OECOLOGIA
卷 188, 期 2, 页码 559-569

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00442-018-4235-y

关键词

Abundance; Body length; Fleas; Host specificity; Phylogeny

类别

资金

  1. Israel Science Foundation [149/17]
  2. Russian Federation
  3. Blaustein Center for Scientific Cooperation
  4. French Associates Institute for Agriculture and Biotechnology of Drylands

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We studied the relationships between body size and (a) abundance and (b) host specificity in fleas parasitic on small mammals (rodents and shrews) in the Palearctic taking into account the confounding effect of phylogeny. We tested these relationships both across 127 flea species and within separate phylogenetic clades, predicting higher abundance and lower host specificity (in terms of the number or diversity of hosts used by a flea) in smaller species. We also tested for the relationships between body size and abundance separately for species that spend most of their lives on a host's body (the body fleas) and species that spend most of their lives in a host's burrow or nest (the nest fleas). A significant phylogenetic signal in body size was detected across all fleas, as well as in five of six separate clades. Across all fleas and in majority of phylogenetic clades, mean abundance significantly increased with an increase in body size. The same pattern was found for both the body and the nest fleas, although the slope of the relationship appeared to be steeper in the former than in the latter. Neither measure of host specificity demonstrated a significant correlation with body size regardless of the subset of flea species analysed. We explain higher abundance attained by larger flea species by higher fecundity and/or competitive advantage upon smaller species at larval stage. We conclude that the macroecological patterns reported to date in parasites are far from being universal.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据