Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T14:44:53.076Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inequalities in the individual reproductive success of parasites

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

A. P. Dobson
A. P. Dobson
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Two simple methods of measuring the levels of inequality in reproductive success of different individuals in parasite populations are presented. These techniques are then applied to a number of sets of data for cestodes and acanthocephalans. The analysis suggests that both population density and host nutrition are important in determining the observed degree of inequality in reproductive success and body size. Cestodes, with a more flexible growth form, are shown to exhibit higher levels of inequality than acanthocephalans. The discussion outlines the evolutionary importance of considering variation in the reproductive success of different individuals.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 92 , Issue 3 , June 1986 , pp. 675 - 682
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

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

REFERENCES

Begon, M. (1984). Density and individual fitness: asymmetric competition. In Evohitionary Ecology (ed. Shorrocks, B.), pp. 175–194. Symposium of the British Ecological Society. Oxford: Blackwells.Google Scholar
Bowman, M. J. (1946). Readings in the Theory of Income Distributions. Philadelphia: Blackston.Google Scholar
Crompton, D. W. T. (1985). Reproduction. In Biology of the Acanthocephala (ed. Crompton, D. W. T. and Nickol, B. B.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Efron, B. (1982). The jacknife, the bootstrap and other resampling plans. SIAM (Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics) Monographs 38.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A. (1930). The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gini, C. (1912). Variabilita e mutabilita. Bologna.Google Scholar
Keymer, A., Crompton, D. W. T. & Singhvi, A. (1983 a). Mannose and the ‘crowding effect’ of Hymenolepis in rats. International Journal for Parasitology 13, 561–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keymer, A., Crompton, D. W. T. & Walters, D. E. (1983 b). Parasite population biology and host nutrition: dietary fructose and Moniliformis (Acanthocephala). Parasitology 87, 265–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leverich, W. J. & Levin, D. A. (1979). Age-specific surviworship and reproduction in Phlox drummondi. The American Naturalist 113, 881–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lomnicki, A. (1978). Individual differences between animals and the natural regulation of their numbers. Journal of Animal Ecology 47, 461–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorenz, M. O. (1905). Methods for measuring the concentration of wealth. American Statistical Association 9, 209–19.Google Scholar
Pielou, E. C. (1975). Ecological Diversity. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Roberts, L. S. (1961). The influence of population density on patterns and physiology of growth in Hymenolepis diminuta (Cestode: Cyclophyllidea) in the definitive host. Experimental Parasitology 11, 332–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rubenstein, D. I. (1981). Individual variation and competition in the everglades pygmy sunfish. Journal of Animal Ecology 50, 337–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A. (1973). On Economic inequality. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sokal, R. R. & Rohlf, J. E. (1981). Biometry. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
Weiner, J. (1985). Size hierarchies in experimental populations of annual plants. Ecology 66, 734–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiner, J. & Solbrig, O. T. (1984). The meaning and measurement of size hierarchies in plant populations. Oecologia 61, 334–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
White, J. & Harper, J. L. (1970). Correlated changes in plant size and number in plant populations. Journal of Ecology 58, 467–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, H. H. & Bray, R. A. (1984). at Chimaerocestos prudlwei gen. et sp.nov., representing a new family of tetraphyllideans and the first record of strobilate tapeworms from a holocephalan. Parasitology 88, 105–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, S. (1931). Evolution in Mendelian populations. Genetics 10, 97–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, S. (1969). Evolution and the Genetics of Populations. Vol. 2. The Theory of Gene Frequencies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar