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...
Saved in:
Published in: | Parasitology 2013-04, Vol.140 (4), p.461-470 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , |
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 & 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 & 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 & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & 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 |