Parasites exploit hosts to replicate and transmit, but overexploitation kills host and parasite (1): predators may shift this cost-benefit balance by consuming hosts (2-4) or changing host behavior, but the strength of these effects remains unclear. Modeling both, we find a primary, strong effect: hosts group to defend against predators (5), increasing parasite transmission, thus multiple infections, and therefore favoring more exploitative, virulent, parasites (6). Indeed, among 18 Trinidadian Gyrodactyus spp. parasite lines, those collected from high predation guppy populations were more virulent in common garden than those from low .

Parasites exploit hosts to replicate and transmit, but overexploitation kills both host and parasite: parasite virulence evolves to balance these costs and benefits. Predators can in theory shift this balance by consuming hosts. However, the non-consumptive effects of predators may be as important as their consumptive effects. Here, we use an eco-coevolutionary model to show that predators select for host grouping, a common anti-predator, defensive social behaviour. Host grouping simultaneously increases parasite transmission, thus within-host parasite competition, and therefore favours more exploitative, virulent, parasites. When parametrized with data from the guppy-Gyrodactylus spp. system, including our experimentally demonstrated trade-off between virulence and transmission, our model accurately predicted the common garden-assayed virulence of 18 parasite lines collected from four Trinidadian guppy populations under different predation regimes. The quantitative match between theory and data lends credence to the model insight that the non-consumptive, social behaviour pathway is entirely responsible for the observed increase in virulence with predation pressure. Our results indicate that parasites play an important, underappreciated role in guppy evolutionary ecology. Moreover, group living is a common anti-predator defence and our general model accommodates host-parasite interactions across taxa: its insight into the interactions among predation, sociality, and virulence evolution may apply broadly. Our results additionally suggest that social distancing, by reducing host-host contact, can select for less virulent parasites and pathogens.

While the link between the gut microbiome and host behaviour is well established, how the microbiomes of other organs correlate with behaviour remains unclear. Additionally, behaviour–microbiome correlations are likely sex-specific because of sex differences in behaviour and physiology, but this is rarely tested. Here, we tested whether the skin microbiome of the Trinidadian guppy, Poecilia reticulata , predicts fish activity level and shoaling tendency in a sex-specific manner. High-throughput sequencing revealed that the bacterial community richness on the skin (Faith's phylogenetic diversity) was correlated with both behaviours differently between males and females. Females with richer skin-associated bacterial communities spent less time actively swimming. Activity level was significantly correlated with community membership (unweighted UniFrac), with the relative abundances of 16 bacterial taxa significantly negatively correlated with activity level. We found no association between skin microbiome and behaviours among male fish. This sex-specific relationship between the skin microbiome and host behaviour may indicate sex-specific physiological interactions with the skin microbiome. More broadly, sex specificity in host–microbiome interactions could give insight into the forces shaping the microbiome and its role in the evolutionary ecology of the host.

Field research can be an important component of the career trajectories for researchers in numerous academic fields; however, conducting research in field settings poses risks to health and safety, and researchers from marginalized groups often face greater risks than those experienced by other researchers in their fields; If these additional risks are not actively and thoughtfully mitigated, they are likely to hinder the participation of qualified investigators in field research and counteract efforts to improve and promote diversity, equity and inclusion in the field sciences. Here we provide, from our perspectives as co‐authors of a field safety manual for the Department of Biological Sciences at the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania, United States, (A) background on risks and barriers that should be considered when planning and conducting field research and (B) suggestions on how to work as a collaborative team for developing an inclusive field safety manual. As an example of a manual this proposed process has yielded, we have included our own field safety manual written with diversity, equity and inclusion as a central focus. We hope this publication serves as a starting point for those interested in developing a similar document for use in their laboratory group, department or institution.

No abstract