Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-06T15:34:58.912Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The relationship between parasite virulence and environmental persistence: a meta-analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2019

Charlotte Rafaluk-Mohr*
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Mansfield Road, Oxford, OX1 3SZ, UK
*
Author for correspondence: Charlotte Rafaluk-Mohr, E-mail: charlotte.rafaluk@zoo.ox.ac.uk

Abstract

Why some parasites evolve and maintain extreme levels of virulence is a question that remains largely unanswered. A body of theory predicts that parasites that form long-lived spores able to persist in the environment evolve higher virulence, known as the sit and wait hypothesis. Such parasites can obliterate their local host population and wait in the environment for further hosts to arrive, reducing some of the costs of high virulence. On the other hand, some models predict the opposite to be true, that virulence and environmental persistence are both costly and traded off, the resource allocation hypothesis. I conducted a meta-analysis on published data on the relationship between environmental persistence and virulence collected to date. I first examined all data available to date and then conducted a smaller analysis focussing on just those studies testing the specific predictions of the sit and wait hypothesis. Empirical work supports both hypotheses; however, the direction of the effect is largely associated with parasite type. In both analyses, viruses tend to show evidence of resource allocation trade-offs, these traits are positively correlated in bacterial and fungal parasites.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 
Figure 0

Table 1. Studies included in the meta-analysis.

Figure 1

Fig. 1. Forrest plots of effect sizes for virulence. Positive values of effect size indicate a positive relationship between virulence and environmental persistence (longer persistence = higher virulence) and negative values indicate a negative relationship (longer persistence = lower virulence). The dashed line represents an effect size of zero (no relationship between persistence and virulence). ‘n’ indicates the sample size of each dataset included in the analysis. Bars represent 95% confidence intervals. (A) Effect size by study. ‘n’ indicates the sample size of each dataset included in the analysis. (B) Effect size by the moderator variable parasite type. ‘n’ indicates the number of datasets for each parasite type included in the analysis. (C) Effect size by the moderator variable virulence measure. ‘n’ indicates the number of datasets for each measure included in the analysis. (D) Effect size by the moderator variable experiment type. ‘n’ indicates the number of datasets for each experiment type included in the analysis.

Figure 2

Fig. 2. Forrest plots of effect sizes for virulence for the second smaller analysis. Positive values of effect size indicate a positive relationship between virulence and environmental persistence (longer persistence = higher virulence) and negative values indicate a negative relationship (longer persistence = lower virulence). The dashed line represents an effect size of zero (no relationship between persistence and virulence). ‘n’ indicates the sample size of each dataset included in the analysis. Bars represent 95% confidence intervals. (A) Effect size by study. ‘n’ indicates the sample size of each dataset included in the analysis. (B) Effect size by the moderator variable parasite type. ‘n’ indicates the number of datasets for each parasite type included in the analysis.

Figure 3

Fig. 3. Funnel plots of the relationships between virulence and environmental persistence. Each point represents a dataset included in the meta-analysis. The grey, dashed lines show the effect size and confidence limits predicted by the meta-analysis model. (A) Funnel plot of the first meta-analysis. (B) Funnel plot of the second smaller analysis.