Migration, Prospecting, Dispersal? What Host Movement Matters for Infectious Agent Circulation?

Abstract

Spatial disease ecology is emerging as a new field that requires the integration of complementary approaches to address how the distribution and movements of hosts and parasites may condition the dynamics of their interactions. In this context, migration, the seasonal movement of animals to different zones of their distribution, is assumed to play a key role in the broad scale circulation of parasites and pathogens. Nevertheless, migration is not the only type of host movement that can influence the spatial ecology, evolution, and epidemiology of infectious diseases. Dispersal, the movement of individuals between the location where they were born or bred to a location where they breed, has attracted attention as another important type of movement for the spatial dynamics of infectious diseases. Host dispersal has notably been identified as a key factor for the evolution of host-parasite interactions as it implies gene flow among local host populations and thus can alter patterns of coevolution with infectious agents across spatial scales. However, not all movements between host populations lead to dispersal per se. One type of host movement that has been neglected, but that may also play a role in parasite spread is prospecting, i.e., movements targeted at selecting and securing new habitat for future breeding. Prospecting movements, which have been studied in detail in certain social species, could result in the dispersal of infectious agents among different host populations without necessarily involving host dispersal. In this article, we outline how these various types of host movements might influence the circulation of infectious disease agents and discuss methodological approaches that could be used to assess their importance. We specifically focus on examples from work on colonial seabirds, ticks, and tick-borne infectious agents. These are convenient biological models because they are strongly spatially structured and involve relatively simple communities of interacting species. Overall, this review emphasizes that explicit consideration of the behavioral and population ecology of hosts and parasites is required to disentangle the relative roles of different types of movement for the spread of infectious diseases.

Exposure of breeding albatrosses to the agent of avian cholera: dynamics of antibody levels and ecological implications

“…Notably, the pathogen also threatens the endangered endemic Amsterdam albatross (Diomedea amsterdamensis; Rivalan et al 2010). Indeed, the entire population of this endemic species breeds in relative close proximity to the affected yellow-nosed albatross population, and predating and scavenging brown skuas (Stercorarius antarcticus) may act as epidemiological bridges between the two populations (Boulinier et al 2016).…”

“More Than Meets the Eye”: Cryptic Diversity and Contrasting Patterns of Host-Specificity in Feather Mites Inhabiting Seabirds

“…Direct physical contact among hosts of the same species could occur during mating and chick rearing throughout the breeding period. Mite dispersal between host populations could also be favored by juvenile birds that prospect among breeding colonies, or adult birds that change their breeding locality (Boulinier et al, 2016), or even by phoresy (Harbison et al, 2009). This is supported by previous population genetic studies of the seabird hosts that show weak genetic structuring at local geographic scales and high between island population gene flow (Gómez-Díaz et al, 2006Friesen et al, 2007).…”

Dynamic, spatial models of parasite transmission in wildlife: Their structure, applications and remaining challenges

“…Since individual movement patterns (not just changes in population density) can have profound effects on disease dynamics, it is important to reflect on how animal movement is typically incorporated into disease models (Boulinier et al., ; Fofana & Hurford, ). Not accounting for movement when using observational data can interfere with our ability to make deductions about underlying biological processes (Cross, Caillaud, & Heisey, ).…”