EurekaMag.com logo
+ Site Statistics
References:
53,623,987
Abstracts:
29,492,080
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
EurekaMag Most Shared ContentMost Shared
EurekaMag PDF Full Text ContentPDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full TextRequest PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on FacebookFollow on Facebook
Follow on TwitterFollow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedInFollow on LinkedIn

+ Translate

Community context and specialization influence coevolution between a slavemaking ant and its hosts



Community context and specialization influence coevolution between a slavemaking ant and its hosts



Ecology Washington D C ember; 85(11): 2997-3009



The dynamics of host-parasite coevolution are thought to be influenced not only by inherent parameters, but also by their community context. Here we report strong differences in the degree of specialization of a social parasite at different geographic sites. Furthermore, we provide the first empirical evidence for a deceleration of the coevolutionary arms race caused by the inclusion of a second host species into a parasite-host association. We compare two communities, each including the North American slavemaking ant Protomognathus americanus and two Leptothorax host species, with similar parasite and host densities. At the first site, the minority host species occurred at frequencies too low to sustain the parasite, whereas at the second location, both hosts constituted an exploitable resource. Thus, only in the latter community does the parasite have the options to expand its niche or to alternate between the available host species. During slave raids, which represent the crucial parasite-host encounter, hosts and slavemakers from the second site were less efficient at defending and raiding, respectively. Thus, we demonstrate a higher degree of reciprocal adaptation at the location where the parasite specializes on a single host, indicating a more advanced stage of the arms race.

(PDF same-day service: $19.90)

Accession: 011877027

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

DOI: 10.2307/3450540



Related references

Coevolution between the common cuckoo and its major hosts in Japan. Stable versus dynamic specialization on hosts. Oxford Ornithology Series 9: 94-112, 1998

Spatial structure and nest demography reveal the influence of competition, parasitism and habitat quality on slavemaking ants and their hosts. Bmc Ecology 11(): 9-9, 2011

Coevolution of symbiotic mutualists and parasites in a community context. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 22(3): 120-126, 2006

The ecology of slavemaking ants and their hosts in north temperate forests. Ecology Washington D C uary; 83(1): 148-163, 2002

Influence of host profitability and microenvironmental conditions on parasite specialization on a main and an alternative hosts. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 24(6): 1212-1225, 2011

How national context, project design, and local community characteristics influence success in community-based conservation projects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109(52): 21265-21270, 2013

How does community context influence coalitions in the formation stage? A multiple case study based on the Community Coalition Action Theory. Bmc Public Health 10(): 90-90, 2013

Coevolution of hosts and parasites. Parasitology 85(2): 411-426, 1982

Coevolution of Cronartium with its hosts. HortTechnology 10(3): 518, 2000

Coevolution of macroparasites and their hosts. 1991

Coevolution of exploiter specialization and victim mimicry can be cyclic and saltational. Evolutionary Bioinformatics Online 2: 35-43, 2006

The Influence Of Hospital Appointment, Specialization And Type Of Community Upon Medical Practice. Suomen Laakarilehti. Finlands Lakartidning 19: 1577-1590, 1964

Phylogeny, specialization, and brood parasite-host coevolution: Some possible pitfalls of parsimony. Behavioral Ecology 13(1): 1-10, 2002

Biochemical coevolution between parasitoids and their hosts. Evolutionary Strategies of Parasitic Insects and Mites Proceedings of a Symposium: ub 1975) 14-48, 1975

Coevolution of the rust fungi and their hosts. Quarterly Review of Biology 46(3): 211-218, 1971