Distribution and abundance of parasite nematodes: ecological specialisation, phylogenetic constraint or simply epidemiology?

Abstract

We investigate the patterns of abundance‐spatial occupancy relationships of adult parasite nematodes in mammal host populations (828 populations of nematodes from 66 different species of terrestrial mammals). A positive relationship between mean parasite abundance and host occupancy, i.e. prevalence, is found which suggests that local abundance is linked to spatial distribution across species. Moreover, the frequency distribution of the parasite prevalence is bimodal, which is consistent with a core‐satellite species distribution. In addition, a strong positive relationship between the abundance (log‐transformed) and its variance (log‐transformed) is observed, the distribution of worm abundance being lognormally distributed when abundance values have been corrected for host body size. Hanski et al. proposed three distinct hypotheses, which might account for the positive relationship between abundance and prevalence in free and associated organisms: 1) ecological specialisation, 2) sampling artefact, and 3) metapopulation dynamics. In addition, Gaston and co‐workers listed five additional hypotheses. Four solutions were not applicable to our parasitological data due to the lack of relevant information in most host‐parasite studies. The fifth hypothesis, i.e. the confounded effects exerted by common history on observed patterns of parasite distributions, was considered using a phylogeny‐based comparison method. Testing the four possible hypotheses, we obtained the following results: 1) the variation of parasite distribution across host species is not due to phylogenetic confounding effects; 2) the positive relationship between mean abundance and prevalence of nematodes may not result from an ecological specialisation, i.e. host specificity, of these parasites; 3) both a positive abundance‐prevalence relationship and a negative coefficient of variation of abundance‐prevalence relationship are likely to occur which corroborates the sampling model developed by Hanski et al. We argue that demographic explanations may be of particular importance to explain the patterns of bimodality of prevalence when testing Monte‐Carlo simulations using epidemiological modelling frameworks, and when considering empirical findings. We conclude that both the bimodal distribution of parasite prevalence and the mean‐variance power function simply result from demographic and stochastic patterns (highlighted by the sampling model), which present compelling evidence that nematode parasite species might adjust their spatial distribution and burden in mammal hosts for simple epidemiological reasons.