Resource subsidies from adfluvial fishes increase stream productivity

2016 ◽  
Vol 61 (6) ◽  
pp. 991-1005 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas E. Jones ◽  
Robert W. Mackereth
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (15) ◽  
pp. 5724-5731 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric Harvey ◽  
Isabelle Gounand ◽  
Chelsea J. Little ◽  
Emanuel A. Fronhofer ◽  
Florian Altermatt

2018 ◽  
Vol 373 (1745) ◽  
pp. 20170101 ◽  
Author(s):  
David J. Civitello ◽  
Brent E. Allman ◽  
Connor Morozumi ◽  
Jason R. Rohr

Anthropogenic resource supplementation can shape wildlife disease directly by altering the traits and densities of hosts and parasites or indirectly by stimulating prey, competitor or predator species. We first assess the direct epidemiological consequences of supplementation, highlighting the similarities and differences between food provisioning and two widespread forms of nutrient input: agricultural fertilization and aquatic nutrient enrichment. We then review an aquatic disease system and a general model to assess whether predator and competitor species can enhance or overturn the direct effects of enrichment. All forms of supplementation can directly affect epidemics by increasing host population size or altering parasite production within hosts, but food provisioning is most likely to aggregate hosts and increase parasite transmission. However, if predators or competitors increase in response to supplementation, they could alter resource-fuelled outbreaks in focal hosts. We recommend identifying the traits of hosts, parasites or interacting species that best predict epidemiological responses to supplementation and evaluating the relative importance of these direct and indirect mechanisms. Theory and experiments should examine the timing of behavioural, physiological and demographic changes for realistic, variable scenarios of supplementation. A more integrative view of resource supplementation and wildlife disease could yield broadly applicable disease management strategies. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Anthropogenic resource subsidies and host–parasite dynamics in wildlife’.


2018 ◽  
Vol 373 (1745) ◽  
pp. 20170090 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sahnzi C. Moyers ◽  
James S. Adelman ◽  
Damien R. Farine ◽  
Courtney A. Thomason ◽  
Dana M. Hawley

Anthropogenic food provisioning of wildlife can alter the frequency of contacts among hosts and between hosts and environmental sources of pathogens. Despite the popularity of garden bird feeding, few studies have addressed how feeders influence host contact rates and disease dynamics. We experimentally manipulated feeder density in replicate aviaries containing captive, pathogen-naive, groups of house finches ( Haemorhous mexicanus ) and continuously tracked behaviours at feeders using radio-frequency identification devices. We then inoculated one bird per group with Mycoplasma gallisepticum (Mg), a common bacterial pathogen for which feeders are fomites of transmission, and assessed effects of feeder density on house finch behaviour and pathogen transmission. We found that pathogen transmission was significantly higher in groups with the highest density of bird feeders, despite a significantly lower rate of intraspecific aggressive interactions relative to the low feeder density groups. Conversely, among naive group members that never showed signs of disease, we saw significantly higher concentrations of Mg-specific antibodies in low feeder density groups, suggesting that birds in low feeder density treatments had exposure to subclinical doses of Mg. We discuss ways in which the density of garden bird feeders could play an important role in mediating the intensity of Mg epidemics. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Anthropogenic resource subsidies and host–parasite dynamics in wildlife'.


Oecologia ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 187 (1) ◽  
pp. 167-180 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael P. Venarsky ◽  
David M. Walters ◽  
Robert O. Hall ◽  
Bridget Livers ◽  
Ellen Wohl

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document