Does immunity vary with population density in wild populations of Mormon crickets?

Nathan W. Bailey, Brian Gray, Marlene Zuk

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Background: Parasite transmission rate often increases with population density, and selection is expected to favour individuals that differentially allocate immune resources according to future population density (density-dependent prophylaxis). Laboratory studies uphold these predictions, but. field studies sometimes contradict them.

Question: Do wild populations of Mormon crickets show density-dependent prophylaxis?

Organisms: Cryptically coloured low-density, and darkly melanized high-density, populations of Mormon crickets (Anabrus simplex).

Methods: Over 2 years, we assessed two measures of immunity, encapsulation ability and lysozyme activity, in populations with known genetic relationships.

Results: Individuals from consistently high-density populations showed greater immune responses. Increases in each immune parameter were positively associated with cuticular melanization. Despite the broad correspondence between high population density and increased immunity, immune variation in wild Mormon crickets appears to be predominated by population-level effects, as opposed to the short-term flexibility in immunity expected under a conventional interpretation of density-dependent prophylaxis.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)599-610
Number of pages12
JournalEvolutionary Ecology Research
Volume10
Issue number4
Publication statusPublished - May 2008

Keywords

  • Anabrus simplex
  • density-dependent prophylaxis
  • ecological immunology
  • encapsulation
  • lysozyme activity
  • DISEASE RESISTANCE
  • DEPENDENT PROPHYLAXIS
  • TENEBRIO-MOLITOR
  • GEOGRAPHIC-VARIATION
  • GRYLLUS-TEXENSIS
  • MEALWORM BEETLE
  • ANABRUS-SIMPLEX
  • DESERT LOCUSTS
  • TRADE-OFFS
  • LEPIDOPTERA

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Does immunity vary with population density in wild populations of Mormon crickets?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this