Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T06:14:03.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Best practice guidelines for studies of parasite community ecology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2018

R. Poulin Open the ORCID record for R. Poulin [Opens in a new window]
R. Poulin*
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Otago, P.O. Box 56, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand
*
Author for correspondence: R. Poulin, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In recent decades, parasite community ecology has produced hundreds of studies on an ever-growing number of host species, and developed into an active sub-discipline of parasitology. However, this growth has been characterized by a lack of standards in the practices used by researchers, with many common approaches being flawed, unjustified or misleading. Here, in the hope of promoting advances in the study of parasite community ecology, I identify some of the most common errors or weaknesses in past studies, and propose ten simple rules for best practice in the field. They cover issues including, among others, taxonomic resolution, proper and justifiable analytical methods, higher-level replication, controlling for sampling effort or species richness, accounting for spatial distances, using experimental approaches, and placing raw data in the public domain. While knowledge of parasite communities has expanded in breadth, with more and more host species being studied, true progress has been very limited with respect to our understanding of fundamental general processes shaping these communities. It is hoped that the guidelines presented here can direct researchers away from the entrenched use of certain approaches flawed in design, analysis or interpretation, by offering a more rigorous and standardized set of practices, and, hopefully, a way forward.

Keywords

community structureexperimentshypothesesreplicationsampling efforttaxonomic resolution
Type
Review Article
Information
Journal of Helminthology , Volume 93 , Issue 1 , January 2019 , pp. 8 - 11
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Benesh, DP and Kalbe, M (2016) Experimental parasite community ecology: intraspecific variation in a large tapeworm affects community assembly. Journal of Animal Ecology 85, 1004–1013.Google Scholar
Brown, JH et al. (2004) Constraints on negative relationships: mathematical causes and ecological consequences. In Taper, ML and Lele, SR (eds), The Nature of Scientific Evidence. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 298–323.Google Scholar
Budischak, SA et al. (2016) Experimental insight into the process of parasite community assembly. Journal of Animal Ecology 85, 1222–1233.Google Scholar
Cantatore, DMP and Timi, JT (2015) Marine parasites as biological tags in South American Atlantic waters, current status and perspectives. Parasitology 142, 5–24.Google Scholar
Dove, ADM and Cribb, TH (2006) Species accumulation curves and their applications in parasite ecology. Trends in Parasitology 22, 568–574.Google Scholar
Esch, GW, Bush, AO and Aho, JM (1990) Parasite Communities: Patterns and Processes. London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Gregory, RD and Blackburn, TM (1991) Parasite prevalence and host sample size. Parasitology Today 7, 316–318.Google Scholar
Gregory, RD and Woolhouse, MEJ (1993) Quantification of parasite aggregation: a simulation study. Acta Tropica 54, 131–139.Google Scholar
Holmes, JC (1961) Effects of concurrent infections on Hymenolepis diminuta (Cestoda) and Moniliformis dubius (Acanthocephala). I. General effects and comparison with crowding. Journal of Parasitology 47, 209–216.Google Scholar
Holmes, JC (1973) Site segregation by parasitic helminths: interspecific interactions, site segregation, and their importance to the development of helminth communities. Canadian Journal of Zoology 51, 333–347.Google Scholar
Holmes, JC and Price, PW (1986) Communities of parasites. In Anderson, DJ and Kikkawa, J (eds), Community Ecology: Pattern and Process. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications, pp. 187–213.Google Scholar
Hu, G et al. (2011) Determinants of plant species richness and patterns of nestedness in fragmented landscapes: evidence from land-bridge islands. Landscape Ecology 26, 1405–1417.Google Scholar
Marcogliese, DJ (2005) Parasites of the superorganism: are they indicators of ecosystem health? International Journal for Parasitology 35, 705–716.Google Scholar
Norton, J, Lewis, JW and Rollinson, D (2004) Temporal and spatial patterns of nestedness in eel macroparasite communities. Parasitology 129, 203–211.Google Scholar
Pérez-Ponce de León, G and Nadler, SA (2010) What we don't recognize can hurt us: a plea for awareness about cryptic species. Journal of Parasitology 96, 453–464.Google Scholar
Pérez-Ponce de León, G and Poulin, R (2018) An updated look at the uneven distribution of cryptic diversity among parasitic helminths. Journal of Helminthology 92, 197–202.Google Scholar
Poulin, R (1998) Comparison of three estimators of species richness in parasite component communities. Journal of Parasitology 84, 485–490.Google Scholar
Poulin, R (2003) The decay of similarity with geographical distance in parasite communities of vertebrate hosts. Journal of Biogeography 30, 1609–1615.Google Scholar
Poulin, R (2005) Detection of interspecific competition in parasite communities. Journal of Parasitology 91, 1232–1235.Google Scholar
Poulin, R (2007) Evolutionary Ecology of Parasites. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Poulin, R and Kamiya, T (2015) Parasites as biological tags of fish stocks: a meta-analysis of their discriminatory power. Parasitology 142, 145–155.Google Scholar
Poulin, R and Leung, TLF (2010) Taxonomic resolution in parasite community studies: are things getting worse? Parasitology 137, 1967–1973.Google Scholar
Poulin, R et al. (2011) The biogeography of parasitism in sticklebacks: distance, habitat differences and the similarity in parasite occurrence and abundance. Ecography 34, 540–551.Google Scholar
Sures, B (2004) Environmental parasitology: relevancy of parasites in monitoring environmental pollution. Trends in Parasitology 20, 170–177.Google Scholar
Vidal-Martinez, VM et al. (2010) Can parasites really reveal environmental impact? Trends in Parasitology 26, 44–51.Google Scholar
Vidal-Martinez, VM et al. (2012) Digenean metacercariae of fishes from the lagoon flats of Palmyra Atoll, eastern Indo-Pacific. Journal of Helminthology 86, 493–509.Google Scholar
Walther, BA et al. (1995) Sampling effort and parasite species richness. Parasitology Today 11, 306–310.Google Scholar
Worthen, WB and Rohde, K (1996) Nested subset analyses of colonization-dominated communities: metazoan ectoparasites of marine fishes. Oikos 75, 471–478.Google Scholar
Wright, DH and Reeves, JH (1992) On the meaning and measurement of nestedness of species assemblages. Oecologia 92, 416–428.Google Scholar