s used by parasites to usurp the behaviour of their host, one of the most fascinating is bodyguard manipulation. While all classic examples of bodyguard manipulation involve insect parasitoids, induced protective behaviours have also evolved in other parasite–host systems, typically as specific dimensions of the total manipulation. For instance, parasites may manipulate the host to reduce host mortality during their development or to avoid predation by non-host predators. This type of host manipulation behaviour is rarely described, probably due to the fact that studies have mainly focused on predation enhancement rather than studying all the dimensions of the manipulation. Here, in addition to the classic cases of bodyguard manipulation, we also review these ‘bodyguard dimensions’ and propose extending the current definition of bodyguard manipulation to include the latter. We also discuss different evolutionary scenarios under which such manipulations could have evolved.
How much energy should manipulative parasites leave to their hosts to ensure altered behaviours?
Although host manipulation is likely to be costly for parasites, we still have a poor understanding of the energetic aspects underlying this strategy. It is traditionally assumed that physiological costs are inevitably associated with mechanisms evolved by parasites to induce the required changes in host behaviours. While most energetic expenditures of parasites relate primarily to bringing about the altered behaviours, manipulative parasites also have to consider the condition of their host during the manipulation. Here, we suggest that because of this trade-off, the energy required to accomplish parasite-induced behaviours may represent a key energetic constraint for parasites. Depending on the energetic expenditures specific to each type of manipulation, parasites should undergo selection to secure resources for their host to allow them to perform manipulated behaviours.
What can parasitoid wasps teach us about decision-making in insects?
Millions of years of co-evolution have driven parasites to display very complex and exquisite strategies to manipulate the behaviour of their hosts. However, although parasite-induced behavioural manipulation is a widespread phenomenon, the underlying neuronal mechanisms are only now beginning to be deciphered. Here, we review recent advancements in the study of the mechanisms by which parasitoid wasps use chemical warfare to manipulate the behaviour of their insect hosts. We focus on a particular case study in which a parasitoid wasp (the jewel wasp Ampulex compressa) performs a delicate brain surgery on its prey (the American cockroach Periplaneta americana) to take away its motivation to initiate locomotion. Following a brief background account of parasitoid wasps that manipulate host behaviour, we survey specific aspects of the unique effects of the A. compressa venom on the regulation of spontaneous and evoked behaviour in the cockroach host.(Big awesome post about parasitoid wasps previously: The players in a mutualistic symbiosis: insects, bacteria, viruses, and virulence genes.)Comparing mechanisms of host manipulation across host and parasite taxa
Parasites affect host behavior in several ways. They can alter activity, microhabitats or both. For trophically transmitted parasites (the focus of our study), decreased activity might impair the ability of hosts to respond to final-host predators, and increased activity and altered microhabitat choice might increase contact rates between hosts and final-host predators. In an analysis of trophically transmitted parasites, more parasite groups altered activity than altered microhabitat choice. Parasites that infected vertebrates were more likely to impair the host’s reaction to predators, whereas parasites that infected invertebrates were more likely to increase the host’s contact with predators. The site of infection might affect how parasites manipulate their hosts. For instance, parasites in the central nervous system seem particularly suited to manipulating host beh