4.2 Article

Evolutionary significance of fecundity reduction in threespine stickleback infected by the diphyllobothriidean cestode Schistocephalus solidus

期刊

BIOLOGICAL JOURNAL OF THE LINNEAN SOCIETY
卷 100, 期 4, 页码 835-846

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2010.01486.x

关键词

castration; Gasterosteus aculeatus; manipulation; nutrient theft; parasitism; side effect

资金

  1. Committee on Research
  2. Newcomb Foundation of Tulane University
  3. National Science Foundation [BSR91-08132]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Parasites may cause fecundity reduction in their hosts via life-history strategies involving simple nutrient theft or manipulation of host energy allocation. Simple theft of nutrients incidentally reduces host energy allocation to reproduction, whereas manipulation is a parasite-driven diversion of energy away from host reproduction. We aimed to determine whether the diphyllobothriidean cestode parasite Schistocephalus solidus causes loss of fecundity in the threespine stickleback fish (Gasterosteus aculeatus) through simple nutrient theft or the manipulation of host energy allocation. In one stickleback population (Walby Lake, Matanuska-Susitna Valley, Alaska), there was no difference in the sizes and ages of infected and uninfected reproducing females. Lightly- and heavily-infected females produced clutches of eggs, but increasingly smaller percentages of infected females produced clutches as the parasite-to-host biomass ratio (PI) increased. Infected, clutch-bearing sticklebacks showed reductions in clutch size, egg mass, and clutch mass, which were related to increases in PI and reflected a reduction in reproductive parameters as growth in parasite mass occurs. The findings obtained for this population are consistent with the hypothesis of simple nutrient theft; however, populations of S. solidus in other regions may manipulate host energy allocation. (C) 2010 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2010, 100, 835-846.

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

4.2
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