IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v31y2020i1p267-276..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Innate antipredator behavior can promote infection in fish even in the absence of predators

Author

Listed:
  • Victor N Mikheev
  • Anna F Pasternak
  • Andrew Yu Morozov
  • Jouni Taskinen
  • Ulrika Candolin

Abstract

Natural enemies—predators and parasites—largely shape the dynamics of ecosystems. It is known that antipredator and antiparasite defense can be mutually conflicting, however consequences of this trade-off for the regulation of infection burden in animals are still poorly understood. We hypothesize that even in the absence of cues from predators, innate antipredator behavior (“ghost of predation past”) interferes with defense against parasites and can enhance the infection risk. As a case study, we explore interactions between a commercial species, the rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss, and its parasite, the trematode eye-fluke Diplostomum pseudospathaceum. Fish–parasite interactions were tested in compartmentalized tanks where shelters and parasites were presented in different combinations providing various conditions for microhabitat choice and territorial behavior. Shelters were attractive and contestable despite the absence of predators and presence of parasites. The individuals fighting for shelters acquired more than twice the number of cercariae as compared to those in infected shelter-free compartments. Most infected were subordinate fish with a higher ventilation rate. Fish possessing shelters were less vulnerable to parasites than fighting fish. Grouping reduced the infection load, although less efficiently than sheltering. Our data demonstrate that the innate antipredator behavior can undermine antiparasite tactics of the fish and result in higher infection rates. Using our empirical results, we construct a mathematical model which predicts that enriching the environment in fish farming will be beneficial only when a large number of shelters is provided. Using insufficient number of shelters will increase the parasite burden in the fish. Lay Summary Conflicting demands of defense against natural enemies increase the risk of parasitism in the presence of predators. We show that even in the absence of predators a built-in antipredator behavior of fish (ghost of predation) may affect parasitism. Grouping and sheltering may reduce not only predation but also infection risk. However, fish fighting for a shelter acquire more parasites due to increased stress and ventilation. We show that there is an optimum number of shelters.

Suggested Citation

  • Victor N Mikheev & Anna F Pasternak & Andrew Yu Morozov & Jouni Taskinen & Ulrika Candolin, 2020. "Innate antipredator behavior can promote infection in fish even in the absence of predators," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 31(1), pages 267-276.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:31:y:2020:i:1:p:267-276.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/arz188
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:31:y:2020:i:1:p:267-276.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/beheco .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.