Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8rzl6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-06T06:12:06.346Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Interactions between species and the structure of helminth communities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2011

R. POULIN
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Otago, P.O. Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The role of interspecific interactions in the structure of gastrointestinal helminth communities has been at the core of most research in parasite community ecology, yet there is no consensus regarding their general importance. There have been two different approaches to the study of species interactions in helminths. The first one consists of measuring the responses of helminth species in concomitant infections, preferably in laboratory experiments. Any change in numbers of parasite individuals or in their use of niche space, compared with what is observed in single infections, provides solid evidence that the species are interacting. The second approach can only provide indirect, circumstantial evidence. It consists in contrasting observed patterns either in the distribution of species richness of infracommunities from wild hosts, in their species composition, or in pairwise associations between helminth species among infracommunities, with the random patterns predicted by appropriate null models. In many cases, observed patterns do not depart from predicted ones; when they do, alternative explanations are usually as plausible as invoking the effect of interactions among helminth species. The present evidence suggests that the role of species interactions in helminth community structure is often negligible, but that it must always be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 2002 Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Schematic representation of the possible effects of concomitant infections on the infrapopulations of two parasite species. Hypothetical infection doses, i.e. the number of parasite larvae of each species administered to hosts, are kept constant in all cases. The vertical dimension of the rectangles illustrates the relative size of each infrapopulation, while the horizontal dimension indicates the use of niche space by each infrapopulation. A, the infrapopulation sizes and fundamental niches of the two species when in single infections; B, a numerical response to concomitant infection, in which infrapopulation sizes are reduced; C, a functional response to concomitant infection, in which the realised niches of both parasites are adjusted to reduce niche overlap; and D, a joint numerical and functional response.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Two possible relationships between the maximum (or mean) infracommunity species richness and the richness of the component community, across host populations or related host species. A, a linear relationship indicates that infracommunity richness increases proportionately with the richness of the component community, possibly because infracommunities are non-interactive; B, a saturation curve indicates that infracommunity richness reaches a limit and becomes independent of component community richness, perhaps as a result of species saturation and strong interspecific interactions.

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Two hypothetical distributions of parasite species among infracommunities (i.e. among host individuals) in a component community. Each rectangle represents a different infracommunity, and infracommunities are arranged from least (at left) to most (at right) species-rich. The average infracommunity richness and the average prevalence of the six parasite species are the same in the two examples of presence/absence matrices. In a perfectly nested design, a parasite species occurring in a host individual with n parasite species will be found in all host individuals with at least n+1 species (adapted from Poulin, 1998).