Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-13T12:03:06.821Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evolutionary implications of Tribolium confusum–Hymenolepis citelli interactions*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

C. Schom,
M. Novak and
W. S. Evans
C. Schom
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, University of New Brunswick Saint John, Saint John, New Brunswick, CanadaE2L 4L5
M. Novak
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg, Manitoba, CanadaR3B 2E9
W. S. Evans
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg, Manitoba, CanadaR3B 2E9
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Hymenolepis citelli caused a marked mortality in Tribolium confusum during the first 14 days of infection. The mortality was higher when the beetles were starved for 6 days immediately prior to infection (73–93%) than when they were starved for 1 day (51%). Regardless of the starvation time, the majority of beetle deaths occurred between days 8 and 11 post-infection (p.i.) and the precise survival time for individuals tended to vary inversely with the number of parasites they contained. With few exceptions beetles that survived until day 15 p.i., when the experiments were terminated, contained 14 or fewer cysticercoids, whereas those that died on or before day 14 p.i. contained 20 or more parasites. Mortality was equally high in both sexes but the mean survival time was significantly shorter for female beetles (8·8 days) than for males (9·6 days). Also, parasite development rate varied with the sex of the host. When parasite populations recovered from beetles that died on the same day were compared, the degree of development attained by those from males was significantly higher than in the populations grown in female hosts. The line of H. citelli used in these experiments has been maintained in the laboratory for the past 5 years. The results obtained with the current generation of this line were compared with those obtained with it 2 years earlier (approximately 16 generations ago). Mortality was lower with the current generation (67%) than with the earlier generation (93%). However, with the latter generation, the mean parasite population size in beetles that survived to day 15 p.i. was significantly higher (14·1 cysticercoids/beetle) than in those infected with the recent generation (7·3–7·9) cysticercoids/beetle). These findings suggest that relatively high selection pressures have been applied by T. confusum to H. citelli, thereby reducing the number of parasite lines with high infectivity and consequently improving host survivorship. The host also responded to artificial, directed selection for reduced cysticercoid number (heritability estimates of 0·30 ± 0·12 and 0·26 ± 0·12) and increased survival (heritability estimates of 0·28 ± 0·12 and 0·15 ± 0·083). The realized heritability was 0·37 for cysticercoid number and 0·17 for increased survival.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 83 , Issue 1 , August 1981, pp. 77 - 90
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1981

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, R. M. (1978). The regulation of host population growth by parasitic species. Parasitology 76, 119–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, R. M. & May, R. M. (1978). Regulation and stability of host–parasite population interactions. I. Regulatory processes. Journal of Animal Ecology 47, 219–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, W. A. (1968). Manual of Procedures in Quantitative Genetics. Pullman, Washington: Washington State University Press.Google Scholar
Collin, W. K. (1970). Electron microscopy of postembryonic stages of the tapeworm, Hymenolepis citelli. Journal of Parasitology 56, 1159–70.Google Scholar
Crofton, H. D. (1971). A quantitative approach to parasitism. Parasitology 62, 179–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunkley, L. C. & Mettrick, D. F. (1971). Factors affecting the susceptibility of the beetle Tribolium confusum to infection by Hymenolepis diminuta. Journal of the New York Entomological Society 79, 133–8.Google Scholar
Dvorak, J. A., Jones, A. W. & Kuhlman, H. H. (1961). Studies on the biology of Hymenolepis microstoma (Dujardin 1845). Journal of Parasitology 47, 833–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, W. S. & Novak, M. (1976). The effect of mebendazole on the development of Hymenolepis diminuta in Tribolium confusum. Canadian Journal of Zoology 54, 1079–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Falconer, D. S. (1965). The inheritance of liability to certain disease estimated from the incidence among relatives. Annual Review of Human Genetics 29, 51–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falconer, D. S. (1970). Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. New York: The Roland Press Company.Google Scholar
Grunenberg, H. (1952). Genetic studies on the skeleton of the mouse. IV. Quasi-continuous variation. Journal of Genetics 51, 95–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heyneman, D. & Voge, M. (1971). Host responses of the flour beetle, Tribolium confusum, to infections with Hymenolepis diminuta, H. microstoma, and H. citelli (Cestoda: Hymenolepididae). Journal of Parasitology 57, 881–6.Google Scholar
Keymer, A. E. & Anderson, R. M. (1979). The dynamics of infection of Tribolium confusum by Hymenolepis diminuta: the influence of infective-stage density and spatial distribution. Parasitology 79, 195–207.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levine, H. (1960). Robust tests for equality of variances. In Contribution to Probability and Statistics, vol. 1 (ed. Olkin, I.et al.), pp. 278–92. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
MacDonald, I. G. & Wilson, P. A. G. (1964). Host–parasite relations of the cysticercoid of Hymenolepis diminuta. Parasitology 54, 7.Google Scholar
Mankau, S. K. (1977). Sex as a factor in the infection of Tribolium spp. by Hymenolepis diminuta. Environmental Entomology 6, 233–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Novak, M. & Evans, W. S. (1978). The effect of mebendazole on different developmental stages of Hymenolepis diminuta cysticercoids. Canadian Journal of Zoology 56, 604–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robertson, A. & Lerner, I. M. (1949). The heritability of all-or-none traits: variability of poultry. Genetics 34, 395–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothman, A. H. (1957). The larval development of Hymenolepis diminuta and H. citelli. Journal of Parasitology 43, 643–8.Google Scholar
Schom, C. B. & Kitt, J. M. (1980). Genetic and environmental control of avian embryos' response to a teratogen. Poultry Science 59, 473–8.Google Scholar
Stallard, H. E. (1975). Studies on the in vivo interactions of three species of Hymenolepis (Cestoda). M.Sc. thesis, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.Google Scholar
Voge, M. (1956). Studies on the life history of Hymenolepis diminuta (MeLeod 1933) (Cestoda: Cyclophyllidea). Journal of Parasitology 42, 485–9.Google Scholar
Voge, M. & Heyneman, D. (1957). Development of Hymenolepis nana and H. diminuta (Cestoda: Hymenolepididae) in the intermediate host (Tribolium confusum). University of California Publications in Zoology 59, 549–79.Google Scholar
Wright, S. (1977). Evolution and the Genetics of Populations. Vol. 3, pp. 455–;64. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar