Native and invasive hosts play different roles in host–parasite networks

Abstract

Parasites are often key players in biological invasions since they can mediate the impact of host invasions or can themselves become invasive species. However, the nature and extent of parasite‐mediated invasions are often difficult to delineate. Here, we used individual‐based, weighted bipartite networks to study the roles (degrees of interactions of individuals in a modular network according to their within‐ and among‐module connections) played by native and invasive host individuals to their parasite communities. We studied two phylogenetically and ecologically close fish species, Mugil cephalus s.l. and Planiliza haematocheilus (Teleostei: Mugilidae). Planiliza haematocheilus is native to the Sea of Japan and invasive in the Sea of Azov whereas, M. cephalus s.l. is native to both seas. Based on the common evolutionary history that drives native host–parasite networks, we hypothesised that 1) native networks have higher modularity than invaded ones; and 2) invasive hosts in the invaded area play a peripheral role to structure parasite communities. We analysed the whole parasite community and subsets based on transmission strategy and host specificity of the parasite species to establish whether modularity and host roles are related to these features in the native and invaded areas. All networks were found to be modular. However, modularity tended to be higher in networks of the native area rather than those of the invaded area. Host individuals of both fish species played similar roles in the native area, whereas invasive hosts played a peripheral role in the networks of the invaded area. We propose that long‐term monitoring of the roles of invasive hosts in parasite communities can be a useful proxy for estimating the maturity of the establishment of the invasive hosts in an ecosystem.