Loading…

Reproductive consequences of host age in a desert flea

We tested for the effect of age of a rodent host (Meriones crassus) on reproductive performance of fleas in terms of number and quality of offspring and predicted that fleas would perform better on juvenile and old than on subadult and adult hosts. The number of flea offspring was evaluated via egg...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Parasitology 2013-04, Vol.140 (4), p.461-470
Main Authors: LIBERMAN, VICTORIA, KHOKHLOVA, IRINA S., DEGEN, A. ALLAN, KRASNOV, BORIS R.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c373t-192aef00af022958527590e7d31fea98fae623969789f38165b7c2e1e87760423
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c373t-192aef00af022958527590e7d31fea98fae623969789f38165b7c2e1e87760423
container_end_page 470
container_issue 4
container_start_page 461
container_title Parasitology
container_volume 140
creator LIBERMAN, VICTORIA
KHOKHLOVA, IRINA S.
DEGEN, A. ALLAN
KRASNOV, BORIS R.
description We tested for the effect of age of a rodent host (Meriones crassus) on reproductive performance of fleas in terms of number and quality of offspring and predicted that fleas would perform better on juvenile and old than on subadult and adult hosts. The number of flea offspring was evaluated via egg and new imago production, while their quality was estimated via duration of development, resistance to starvation and body size. Although fleas produced more eggs when they exploited adults than when they exploited juvenile, subadult and old hosts, significantly more new imago emerged from fleas fed on juvenile and old hosts than on subadult and adult hosts. Fleas performed better when they fed on juvenile and/or old hosts than on subadult and adult hosts in 2 of 3 measures of offspring quality (duration of development and body size). Nevertheless, when offspring quality was estimated via resistance to starvation of a new imago, fleas demonstrated good performance in young (juvenile and subadult) hosts, while they performed poorly in old hosts. Thus, general reproductive performance of fleas was better when they exploited young and old hosts than when they exploited median age cohorts. However, the effect of host age on flea reproductive performance was manifested somewhat differently between (a) male and female hosts and (b) male and female flea offspring.
doi_str_mv 10.1017/S0031182012001904
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1314332660</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1017_S0031182012001904</cupid><sourcerecordid>2903779501</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c373t-192aef00af022958527590e7d31fea98fae623969789f38165b7c2e1e87760423</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kEtLw0AUhQdRbK3-ADcy4MZN9N6ZZCazlOILCoKPdZgmd2pKmtSZRPDfm9gqori6i_Odcw-HsWOEcwTUF48AEjEVgAIADcQ7bIyxMlGKCnfZeJCjQR-xgxCWAKCkEvtsJKRIpJF6zNQDrX1TdHlbvhHPmzrQa0d1ToE3jr80oeV2QbysueUFBfItdxXZQ7bnbBXoaHsn7Pn66ml6G83ub-6ml7Mol1q2ERphyQFYB0KYJE2ETgyQLiQ6siZ1lpSQRhmdGif71slc54KQUq0VxEJO2Nkmty_Z9wpttipDTlVla2q6kKHEWEqhFPTo6S902XS-7tsNlEQd4yeFGyr3TQieXLb25cr69wwhG0bN_ozae062yd18RcW342vFHpDbULua-7JY0I_f_8Z-APBOfRg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1313174160</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Reproductive consequences of host age in a desert flea</title><source>Cambridge University Press:Jisc Collections:Cambridge University Press Read and Publish Agreement 2021-24 (Reading list)</source><creator>LIBERMAN, VICTORIA ; KHOKHLOVA, IRINA S. ; DEGEN, A. ALLAN ; KRASNOV, BORIS R.</creator><creatorcontrib>LIBERMAN, VICTORIA ; KHOKHLOVA, IRINA S. ; DEGEN, A. ALLAN ; KRASNOV, BORIS R.</creatorcontrib><description>We tested for the effect of age of a rodent host (Meriones crassus) on reproductive performance of fleas in terms of number and quality of offspring and predicted that fleas would perform better on juvenile and old than on subadult and adult hosts. The number of flea offspring was evaluated via egg and new imago production, while their quality was estimated via duration of development, resistance to starvation and body size. Although fleas produced more eggs when they exploited adults than when they exploited juvenile, subadult and old hosts, significantly more new imago emerged from fleas fed on juvenile and old hosts than on subadult and adult hosts. Fleas performed better when they fed on juvenile and/or old hosts than on subadult and adult hosts in 2 of 3 measures of offspring quality (duration of development and body size). Nevertheless, when offspring quality was estimated via resistance to starvation of a new imago, fleas demonstrated good performance in young (juvenile and subadult) hosts, while they performed poorly in old hosts. Thus, general reproductive performance of fleas was better when they exploited young and old hosts than when they exploited median age cohorts. However, the effect of host age on flea reproductive performance was manifested somewhat differently between (a) male and female hosts and (b) male and female flea offspring.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0031-1820</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1469-8161</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/S0031182012001904</identifier><identifier>PMID: 23253937</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Age Factors ; Animals ; Body size ; Clutch Size - physiology ; Female ; Females ; Gerbillinae - parasitology ; Gerbillinae - physiology ; Male ; Offspring ; Reproduction ; Siphonaptera - physiology ; Survival Analysis</subject><ispartof>Parasitology, 2013-04, Vol.140 (4), p.461-470</ispartof><rights>Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c373t-192aef00af022958527590e7d31fea98fae623969789f38165b7c2e1e87760423</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c373t-192aef00af022958527590e7d31fea98fae623969789f38165b7c2e1e87760423</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0031182012001904/type/journal_article$$EHTML$$P50$$Gcambridge$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,72960</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23253937$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>LIBERMAN, VICTORIA</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>KHOKHLOVA, IRINA S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DEGEN, A. ALLAN</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>KRASNOV, BORIS R.</creatorcontrib><title>Reproductive consequences of host age in a desert flea</title><title>Parasitology</title><addtitle>Parasitology</addtitle><description>We tested for the effect of age of a rodent host (Meriones crassus) on reproductive performance of fleas in terms of number and quality of offspring and predicted that fleas would perform better on juvenile and old than on subadult and adult hosts. The number of flea offspring was evaluated via egg and new imago production, while their quality was estimated via duration of development, resistance to starvation and body size. Although fleas produced more eggs when they exploited adults than when they exploited juvenile, subadult and old hosts, significantly more new imago emerged from fleas fed on juvenile and old hosts than on subadult and adult hosts. Fleas performed better when they fed on juvenile and/or old hosts than on subadult and adult hosts in 2 of 3 measures of offspring quality (duration of development and body size). Nevertheless, when offspring quality was estimated via resistance to starvation of a new imago, fleas demonstrated good performance in young (juvenile and subadult) hosts, while they performed poorly in old hosts. Thus, general reproductive performance of fleas was better when they exploited young and old hosts than when they exploited median age cohorts. However, the effect of host age on flea reproductive performance was manifested somewhat differently between (a) male and female hosts and (b) male and female flea offspring.</description><subject>Age Factors</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Body size</subject><subject>Clutch Size - physiology</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Females</subject><subject>Gerbillinae - parasitology</subject><subject>Gerbillinae - physiology</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Offspring</subject><subject>Reproduction</subject><subject>Siphonaptera - physiology</subject><subject>Survival Analysis</subject><issn>0031-1820</issn><issn>1469-8161</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kEtLw0AUhQdRbK3-ADcy4MZN9N6ZZCazlOILCoKPdZgmd2pKmtSZRPDfm9gqori6i_Odcw-HsWOEcwTUF48AEjEVgAIADcQ7bIyxMlGKCnfZeJCjQR-xgxCWAKCkEvtsJKRIpJF6zNQDrX1TdHlbvhHPmzrQa0d1ToE3jr80oeV2QbysueUFBfItdxXZQ7bnbBXoaHsn7Pn66ml6G83ub-6ml7Mol1q2ERphyQFYB0KYJE2ETgyQLiQ6siZ1lpSQRhmdGif71slc54KQUq0VxEJO2Nkmty_Z9wpttipDTlVla2q6kKHEWEqhFPTo6S902XS-7tsNlEQd4yeFGyr3TQieXLb25cr69wwhG0bN_ozae062yd18RcW342vFHpDbULua-7JY0I_f_8Z-APBOfRg</recordid><startdate>20130401</startdate><enddate>20130401</enddate><creator>LIBERMAN, VICTORIA</creator><creator>KHOKHLOVA, IRINA S.</creator><creator>DEGEN, A. ALLAN</creator><creator>KRASNOV, BORIS R.</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20130401</creationdate><title>Reproductive consequences of host age in a desert flea</title><author>LIBERMAN, VICTORIA ; KHOKHLOVA, IRINA S. ; DEGEN, A. ALLAN ; KRASNOV, BORIS R.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c373t-192aef00af022958527590e7d31fea98fae623969789f38165b7c2e1e87760423</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Age Factors</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Body size</topic><topic>Clutch Size - physiology</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Females</topic><topic>Gerbillinae - parasitology</topic><topic>Gerbillinae - physiology</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Offspring</topic><topic>Reproduction</topic><topic>Siphonaptera - physiology</topic><topic>Survival Analysis</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>LIBERMAN, VICTORIA</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>KHOKHLOVA, IRINA S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DEGEN, A. ALLAN</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>KRASNOV, BORIS R.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>PML(ProQuest Medical Library)</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Parasitology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>LIBERMAN, VICTORIA</au><au>KHOKHLOVA, IRINA S.</au><au>DEGEN, A. ALLAN</au><au>KRASNOV, BORIS R.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Reproductive consequences of host age in a desert flea</atitle><jtitle>Parasitology</jtitle><addtitle>Parasitology</addtitle><date>2013-04-01</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>140</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>461</spage><epage>470</epage><pages>461-470</pages><issn>0031-1820</issn><eissn>1469-8161</eissn><abstract>We tested for the effect of age of a rodent host (Meriones crassus) on reproductive performance of fleas in terms of number and quality of offspring and predicted that fleas would perform better on juvenile and old than on subadult and adult hosts. The number of flea offspring was evaluated via egg and new imago production, while their quality was estimated via duration of development, resistance to starvation and body size. Although fleas produced more eggs when they exploited adults than when they exploited juvenile, subadult and old hosts, significantly more new imago emerged from fleas fed on juvenile and old hosts than on subadult and adult hosts. Fleas performed better when they fed on juvenile and/or old hosts than on subadult and adult hosts in 2 of 3 measures of offspring quality (duration of development and body size). Nevertheless, when offspring quality was estimated via resistance to starvation of a new imago, fleas demonstrated good performance in young (juvenile and subadult) hosts, while they performed poorly in old hosts. Thus, general reproductive performance of fleas was better when they exploited young and old hosts than when they exploited median age cohorts. However, the effect of host age on flea reproductive performance was manifested somewhat differently between (a) male and female hosts and (b) male and female flea offspring.</abstract><cop>Cambridge, UK</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><pmid>23253937</pmid><doi>10.1017/S0031182012001904</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0031-1820
ispartof Parasitology, 2013-04, Vol.140 (4), p.461-470
issn 0031-1820
1469-8161
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1314332660
source Cambridge University Press:Jisc Collections:Cambridge University Press Read and Publish Agreement 2021-24 (Reading list)
subjects Age Factors
Animals
Body size
Clutch Size - physiology
Female
Females
Gerbillinae - parasitology
Gerbillinae - physiology
Male
Offspring
Reproduction
Siphonaptera - physiology
Survival Analysis
title Reproductive consequences of host age in a desert flea
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T16%3A20%3A43IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Reproductive%20consequences%20of%20host%20age%20in%20a%20desert%20flea&rft.jtitle=Parasitology&rft.au=LIBERMAN,%20VICTORIA&rft.date=2013-04-01&rft.volume=140&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=461&rft.epage=470&rft.pages=461-470&rft.issn=0031-1820&rft.eissn=1469-8161&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/S0031182012001904&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2903779501%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c373t-192aef00af022958527590e7d31fea98fae623969789f38165b7c2e1e87760423%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1313174160&rft_id=info:pmid/23253937&rft_cupid=10_1017_S0031182012001904&rfr_iscdi=true