Chondronema passali

The horned passalus beetle (Odontotaenius disjunctus) is an insect that is commonly found in rotting logs. These beetles do more than just eat wood, they excavate extensive tunnels within those logs where they would mate and raise a whole family of baby beetles. By doing so, they play an important ecological role in breaking down dead wood and making their nutrients accessible to other organisms in the forest such as bacteria and fungi.

Top: A piece of dead wood with burrows made by the horned passalus beetle. Bottom left: A horned passalus beetle. Bottom right: Chondronema passali nematodes taken from the hemocoel of a beetle.
Photos from Fig 1 of the paper

Living inside these beetles is a species of nematode worm called Chondronema passali. These nematodes are also very common - each beetle harbours dozens to thousands of such worms, which swim freely in the beetle's hemolymph - the insect equivalent of blood. Having this many worms squirming around inside them must be affecting these beetles somehow - but how exactly?

The study featured in this blog post looked at how Chondronema affected the beetle's "freezing" behaviour - this is a defensive response where the beetle tries to hold as still as it can so they won't get noticed by potential predators. The researchers exposed beetles to different sources of stress such as digging them out of their shelter and placing them in a brightly lit room, flipping them on their back so they can't right themselves, putting them on a tray with a vibrating phone underneath, or loudly banging the tray they're sitting on with a metal rod. All these treatments honestly sound pretty stressful even if you're not a beetle.

The researchers observed that after being exposed to one of those distressing stimuli, female beetles tend to hold still for about twice as long as the male beetles. But this trend is flipped among beetles which have a lot of worms. For female beetles, the more worms they have, the less they seem to care about being stressed - they don't hold still for as long and seem to be in a hurry to get on with their day. In contrast, the worms seem to make male beetles more fearful, and they tend to stay still for longer after being stressed out.

It is unclear why these nematodes cause their hosts to change their defensive response, and why the effects differ across the beetle's sexes. Such parasite-induced behavioural changes are sometimes attributed to some form of host manipulation by the parasite, altering host behaviour in such a way that would enhance the parasite's own transmission, such as making the host more vulnerable to predators. But such changes in host behaviour isn't always due to the parasite taking control, sometimes it could just be a side-effect of the infection, and the behavioural change doesn't always benefit the parasite.

Furthermore the life cycle of this nematode does not involve being eaten by a predator. The beetle serves as a safe haven where young Chondronema grow and develop. Once they become adult worms, they leave the beetle to live amidst the tunnels excavated by their hosts. So it wouldn't be beneficial for Chondronema to compromise the beetle's safety, especially when they affect the male and female beetles in such different ways.

Aside from the beetle's freezing behaviour, Chondronema can also affect their host in many other facets, including their fighting abilities, as well as their immune response. Additionally, infected beetles also grow to be bigger and heavier, and they chew through more wood than their uninfected counterparts, possibly to compensate for the energetic cost of the wormy passengers inside their (larger) body. All this indicates infected beetles are physiologically compensating for the presence of the nematodes in multiple ways, so this change in their defensive behaviour might simply be a byproduct of the beetle's coping mechanisms.

The impact that a parasite has on its host can manifest itself in many different ways. In the case of Chondronema, its effects on the host also has far-reaching implications, since these beetles play such important ecological roles. By making its host chew through more wood, this tiny worm can have a major impact on an entire forest.

Reference:

Davis, A. K., Ladd, R. R., Smith, F., & Shattuck, A. (2023). Sex-specific effects of a parasite on stress-induced freezing behavior in a natural beetle-nematode system. PloS One 18: e0281149.

Rickia wasmannii

Rickia wasmannii is a fungus that lives on ants, and when it comes to ants and fungi most people usually think of Ophiocordyceps, i.e. the zombie ant fungus - which was the inspiration for The Last of Us series of video games and TV series. But R. wasmannii is not a killer - instead of zombifying its host and digesting the corpse, this fungus seems to reduce animosity and aggression between ants. First of all, let's take a look at what R. wasmannii actually does on ants. 

Left: Illustration of a Rickia wasmannii thallus, Right top: Uninfected ant, Right bottom: ant infected with R. wasmannii
Pictures from Figure 1 of this paper

Rickia wasmannii belongs to a group of fungi called Laboulbeniales, also known more colloquially as "labouls". These fungi have little holdfasts called haustoria that allows them to cling to the ant's cuticle. They are ectoparasites of insects that attach to their host's external surface and suck their hemolymph (insect's equivalent of blood). So in a way they are rather like ticks or lice (and yes, there are labouls that live on ectoparasitic insects, which one might consider as a bit of poetic justice).

But this fungus seems to do more than just suck the ant's blood, as it causes the infected ants and other ants around them to behave differently. Rickia wasmannii changes the host ant's cuticular hydrocarbon or CHC profile. CHC is essentially an ant's ID profile - they use it to recognise nestmates, tell each other apart, and be alerted to strangers from other nests. But R. wasmannii messes with that, scrambling the infected ants' CHC profile, and making them "smell" differently to uninfected ants.

Scientists wanted to find out how the presence of this fungus affects the way ants interact with each other. The challenge with studying ant behaviour is that when you put two ants together, it is difficult to tell apart whether the ant you are observing is responding to the other ant's chemical profile, or if it is responding to the way the other ant is reacting to them. The only way to get a clear observation is to present the ant with something that it would recognise as a fellow ant, but would not muddle the outcome by reacting to the ant that you are trying to observed

The solution turns out to be freeze-killed ants. Ants that are killed in this manner retain their CHC profile, so other ants would treat them just as another live ant, but obviously a dead ant wouldn't react to a live ant's presence and confound the outcome. In addition to those freeze-killed test subjects, scientists also made ant "dummies" which are essentially blank slates in ant forms that they can imbue with whatever chemical signature they were testing. These "dummies" were made by washing ant corpses in hexane to remove their chemical signature. To ants, these specially treated ant corpses are like faceless mannequin, with no identity - until the scientist imbues them with one, by anointing them with a droplet of cuticular extract from another ant.

When ants were presented with dummies that were smeared with the cuticular extract of ants from a different nest, the ants started biting, dragging, or stinging the dummies, much like how they would respond to a live ant from another nest. But when they were presented with either the corpse of a Rickia-infected ant, or dummies that "smell" like a Rickia-infected ant, they were more relaxed and less likely to get aggro. Furthermore, it's not just that the fungus made other ants act differently, the infected ant itself also starts behaving differently. Infected ants are generally less likely to pick a fight with another ant, but especially when facing other infected ants.

As mentioned previously, R. wasmannii seems to change the ant's CHC profile, but one would think scrambling the host ant's profile would make other ants react more aggressively towards them since ants usually have a "stranger danger" response to ants that "smell" different to their nestmates. But the way that R. wasmannii changes how an ant "smell" seems to have a calming effect, and this comes down to a molecule called n-C23 which is present in higher concentration on the cuticle of all infected ants. When the scientist presented ants with dummies that have been smeared with n-C23 and nothing else, almost all hints of aggressive behaviour ceased.

So by increasing n-C23 concentration in its host's cuticle, R. wasmannii has unlocked a life hack that allows it to not just access all areas in an ant colony, but to spread to other nests as well. In the scientists' study population, about half the colonies they studied had the fungus present, and in some nests, all the ants were infected with R. wasmannii. A testament to the fungus' successful manipulation of ant behaviour.

Furthermore the fungus' presence also affects another, very different parasite which also lives with ants - the caterpillar of blue butterflies. These caterpillars are social parasites that convince worker ants into adopting them into their nest. Once they are settled in, they start demanding food from the worker ants and even feed on the ant's developing broods. But the caterpillars don't seem to survive as long in nests which are already hosting R. wasmannii, and in the field, these two parasites co-occur less commonly than expected based on their respective prevalence, which indicates the caterpillar and the fungus are in competition over ant real estate.

By messing with their identity and making them more chilled out, R. wasmannii can turn an ant colony into a fungus party. But the consequences of that ripple out to other ant colonies too, along with the organisms that regularly take up residency in the homes of ants.

Reference:
Csata, E., Casacci, L. P., Ruther, J., Bernadou, A., Heinze, J., & Markó, B. (2023). Non-lethal fungal infection could reduce aggression towards strangers in ants. Communications Biology, 6: 183.

Hymenoepimecis bicolor

Over the course of human history, numerous species of plants, animals, and other organisms have been taken from their original habitats and introduced (either intentionally or accidentally) to other parts of the world. Some of those introduced species become "invasives" in their new home, partly due to the lack of natural enemies. But while many invasive species get a brief moment of respite from their old adversaries, the local parasite and predators quickly catch on that the new arrival could be added to their menus too. This was the case for a species of spider that has been introduced to Brazil, where it ended up attracting the attention of a mind-controlling wasp.

Left top: Hymenoepimecis bicolor larva on a spider host, Left bottom: Developing H. bicolor cocoon in a cocoon web,
Right: an adult H. bicolor wasp.
Photo of H. bicolor larva from Fig. 2 of this paper, Photos of cocoon and adult H. bicolor from Fig. 7 and 9 of this paper

Hymenoepimecis bicolor is a species of parasitoid wasp that belongs to a subfamily of wasps called Pimplinae. All the members of that subfamily are a spider's worst nightmares. These wasps specialise in attacking spiders at every stage of their lives - some species go after the unhatched eggs in silk sacs, while others tackle fully-grown adult spiders. Not only that, some of them are also masterful mind manipulators that induce their host spider into spinning a special web called a "cocoon web" that secures the wasp's developing cocoon. And Hymenoepimecis bicolor just happens to be one such manipulator.

Among the pimpline wasps, each species have their own host preferences and in the case of H. bicolor, one of its usual hosts is the golden silk orb-weaver (Trichonephila clavipes), a spider which is native to Brazil. When a female H. bicolor spots a potential host, she flies in and grapples with it, immobilising the spider by stabbing it in the mouth with her ovipositor, before checking it for other wasp eggs, and then planting one of her own. The thing about the golden silk orb-weaver is that while the juvenile spiders are relatively easy for H. bicolor to handle, once the spiders reach adulthood, they become more dangerous for the wasp to tackle. 

Nevertheless, limited host availability means that the wasp sometimes need to go after the bigger spiders anyway, with demand being so high that some spiders end up being parasitised by two wasp larvae at the same time. But the arrival of the tropical tent-web spider (Cyrtophora citricola) has provided H. bicolor with some new options.

The tropical tent-web spider has spread to many parts of the world by hitchhiking in shipments of fruit, potted plants, or packing material, and it has made its way to South America about three decades ago. And it just so happens that their size and habits place them firmly in the sight of H. bicolor. Not only is the tent-web spider in the preferred size range for H. bicolor to parasitise, much like the native orb-weavers, this introduced spider constructs open webs that leave them exposed to attacks. Researchers found that the H. bicolor larvae are able to successfully parasitise the tent-web spider just as well as the native spiders.

While H. bicolor larvae grow well and pupate as usual on the tent-web spiders, it seems that they haven't yet achieved complete mastery over this new-fangled host. As mentioned earlier, when these wasps are ready to pupate, they commandeer their spider hosts to weave a special "cocoon web" that suspends the developing wasp cocoon in mid-air. This makes the cocoon less accessible to any would-be predators or hyperparasitoids. Hymenoepimecis  bicolor embellish that with an added layer of security, by inducing the spider to also build a series "barrier threads" around the cocoon that further bar entry, as well as making the web more stable

This is where the introduced spider host falls short. While the parasitised tent-web spider is able to produce the usual cocoon web with the necessary structure to support and suspend the developing cocoon, it lacks the finishing touches of those additional barrier threads. Ironically, compared with the spiders that H. bicolor usually targets, the regular webs made by the tent-web spider actually needs less modification to make it suitable for the wasp's cocoon.

Based on what's known about these wasps, when it is ready to pupate, the wasp larva produces a cocktail of chemicals that place the spider under its spell. But in this case, it looks like that cocktail formula needs a bit of tweaking to work its full magic on the introduced tent-web spider. While not perfect, it serves its purpose well enough, and the introduction of this spider has allowed a parasitoid wasp to expand its host horizons.

Reference:

Gonzaga, M. O., Pádua, D. G., & Quero, A. (2022). Inclusion of an alien species in the host range of the Neotropical parasitoid Hymenoepimecis bicolor (Brullé, 1846)(Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae). Journal of Hymenoptera Research 89: 9-18.

Massospora cicadina

Periodical cicadas spend most of their lives as juveniles (also known as nymphs), living underground and sucking juices from tree roots. Depending on the species, they keep to this subterranean existence for 13 or 17 years before finally emerging into daylight. And they do so simultaneously in massive numbers. These newly emerged nymphs will climb on to a nearby tree to moult into winged adults. The life of an adult cicada is short and over in about a month. During this period they sing their hearts out and mate until they drop to produce the next generation of cicada nymphs which will return to the soil. But the cicadas aren't the only ones to get busy during this period. Scattered across the landscape are the spores of Massospora cicadina, and for over a decade they have been waiting patiently for the cicadas' return.

Cicadas with and without Masspora infection, note uninfected male cicada which still has the genitalia of an infected female cicada attached. Photos from Figure 1 and 2 of the paper

Massospora cicadina is a parasitic fungus that targets all seven known species of periodical cicadas, and its effects on the host are devastating. Once infected, the cicada is done for - the fungal infection turns the cicada's abdomen into a chalky mass of spores. Surprisingly, despite missing a big chunk of itself, an infected cicada carries on as if it is business as usual - these diseased cicadas keep flying, singing and mating like their uninfected counterparts. But surely there must be more going on beneath that exterior of surprising normality.

A group of researchers investigated if Massospora is doing more to cicadas than just robbing their booties. In particular, they were interested in whether Massospora is altering the cicada's behaviour, as many other insect-infecting fungi are known to do. Since the mid-1990s, they have been spending hundreds of hours documenting the behaviour of both infected and uninfected cicadas. They also collected some of those cicadas and kept them in captivity for closer observations, and played recordings of male cicada songs to them to see how they responded.

There are two ways that cicadas can get infected with Massospora, and how they do so determines what kind of infection they end up with. If a cicada brushed up against some Massospora spores while emerging as a nymph, they end up with what's called a Stage I infection. However, if they picked up the fungus by coming into contact with an infected adult cicada, they would end up with a Stage II infection. Both are equally bad for the cicada, but there are some key differences between them.

Cicadas with Stage I infection tend to crawl around a lot more and leave behind a trail of contagious spores wherever they go. In contrast, those with Stage II infection fly around more often. But aside from that there are also other key behavioural differences, and it relates to what all these cicadas have emerged for - mating. Male cicadas with Stage I infection respond to mating calls the way that female cicadas usually do - with wings flicks that are the cicada's equivalent of "Hey, I'm interested - come and get me!" Any amorous cicadas that respond to this gesture and mate with the infected male also end up contracting the deadly fungus. However those with Stage II infections simply ignored those calls and kept to themselves.

This behavioural change in the infected cicada is more sophisticated that simply turning the male cicada to a "female phenotype". Aside from responding to calls with wing flicks, these male cicadas still behave like other males. The fungus merely added another behavioural response to their repertoire. So what about those with Stage II infection? Why don't they get in on the action?

The spores produced by Stage I infections immediately contagious, so it spreads through the cicada population through physical contact (such as mating). Meanwhile, Stage II infections produce a different type of spores that cannot infect cicadas right away, but can stay dormant and viable in the soil for decades. These spores lie in wait for a future brood of cicadas to emerge, infecting the nymphs as they crawl out of the soil.

In this case, the fungus doesn't need the host to be flirty and rub carapace with other cicadas, they just need it to be a diligent little crop-duster that sprinkle fungal spores all over the landscape. By doing so, Massospora is well-prepared for the next emergence event, when the festival of frantic cicadas and fungal booty-snatchers can start all over again.

Cooley, J. R., Marshall, D. C., & Hill, K. B. (2018). A specialized fungal parasite (Massospora cicadina) hijacks the sexual signals of periodical cicadas (Hemiptera: Cicadidae: Magicicada). Scientific Reports 8(1), 1432.

Arthrophaga myriapodina

The forests around Ithaca, New York is the scene of an arthropod murder mystery. The killer seems to cover their track well and leave no obvious clues behind - aside from the dried, empty husk of dead millipedes clinging to the top of fence posts, branches, and fallen logs. So who or what is the macabre killer leaving the desiccated corpses of millipedes in prominent places? There are pathogens with similar modus operandi that infect and mummify insects; most of them are fungi, and a few of them have been previously featured on this blog, the most well-known example being the "zombie ant fungus". So what is the identity of this millipede killer?

(A) Typical posture of zombified millipedes infected with Arthrophaga myriapodina, (B, C) fungal structures erupting from between the segments of zombified millipedes. Photos from Fig. 3 of the paper

To find out, a group of scientists collected zombified millipedes and examined their fungal infection in detail using microscopes and by sequencing specific sections of their DNA which are used to identify and distinguish different fungi species. With this, they were able to identify and describe the zombie millipede fungus - they named it Arthrophaga myriapodina. This fungus that belongs to a group called the Entomophorales - a group of fungi consisting mostly of insect killers. For example a few months ago, I wrote about another entomophorale fungus that zombifies soldier beetles.

But A. myriapodina is the first species of that group documented to target millipedes. And while this study is the first time that this fungus has been formally described in detail and given a scientific name, such "zombie millipedes" have been known from as long ago as 1886, with some specimens stored in herbarium collections dating back from the early 20th century.

Given this millipede-infecting fungus has had such a long, but under-studied history, these scientists compared their freshly collected zombie millipedes with similar specimens held in museum collections, along with photographs of similar zombified millipedes hosted on sites such as Flickr, BugGuide, iNaturalist and other online photo-sharing sites. Through the combination of collecting fresh specimens, examining museum collections, and searching for online photos, they were able to establish that this fungus is found throughout Northeastern North America, with a few sighting from Texas and California.

As mentioned above, A. myriapodina has a modus operandi similar to many fungi that infect insects. The fungal spores find their way into the host's body and proliferate, eventually taking over the host entirely. When the fungus is ready to reproduce, it changes the host's behaviour so that it would carry it to a position that maximise spore dispersal. For A. myriapodina, this means anywhere elevated, whether it is the top of a fallen log, tree branches, or bridge abutments. Once in position, the fungus  emerge from the zombified millipedes in the form of powdery masses that seep out from between the segments. After they have dispersed their spores, the remaining fungal mass withers away, leaving an empty corpse and a fairy ring of infective spores.

The climbing behaviour that A. myriapodina induces in millipedes is comparable to those caused by zombie ant fungi. It is also a remarkable example of convergent evolution with a group of viruses known as baculoviruses which infect caterpillars and cause them to climb to their deaths. Those viruses induces a syndrome called Wipfelkrankheit or "treetop disease" that makes infected caterpillar climb to a high place before melting their bodies and raining droplets of virus-laden caterpillar goo into the forest canopy.

The emergence of zombie millipedes also seems to be weather dependent, because they are typically sighted a day or two after a bout of heavy rain. Perhaps heavy inundation acts as a trigger for the fungus to produce its spores. More research is needed to understand how rainfall and other seasonal pattern affects the life-cycle and outbreak of this fungal killer.

Reference:
Hodge, K. T., Hajek, A. E., & Gryganskyi, A. (2017). The first entomophthoralean killing millipedes, Arthrophaga myriapodina n. gen. n. sp., causes climbing before host death. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 149: 135-140.

P.S. Some of you might know through my activities on Twitter (@The_Episiarch) that when I'm not writing these posts on new scientific papers about parasites, I also do illustrations, many of which are inspired by parasites and for the last two years I have been doing a series of illustrations known as "Parasite Monster Girls". So in keeping with the theme of this post, my most recent piece is Cordelia - a Parasite Monster Girl version of Cordyceps-infected zombie ants.

Eryniopsis lampyridarum

Mind-controlling fungi that manipulate ants have become quite well-know among the general public due to their ability to induce a "zombie-like" state in their host, but ants are not the only insects that can get infected by fungi, nor are they the only insects to get mind controlled by them. The study featured in this post is about a zombie beetle fungus call Eryniopsis lampyridarum which infects the goldenrod soldier beetle. Despite its name, the goldenrod soldier beetle is not as formidable as its name might indicate. The name is actually based on the first described soldier beetle species which has a colour pattern that resembles the coat of 17th-19th century British soldiers.

From Fig. 2 of the paper

The presence of E. lampyridarum in these beetles has been known for over a century, but relatively little research has been conducted on this pairing aside from some basic ecological research conducted in the 1970s and 1980s. It was not until now that someone has investigated this parasite-host interaction in close details, and provide descriptions of the fungal structure

From Fig. 4 & 5 of the paper

When the fungal infection in a beetle ripens, the infected insect will seek out a flower and clamp their mandibles around it in a vice-like grip. This is rather reminiscent of some zombie ant fungi which cause their hosts to position themselves on the underside of leaves where they can sprinkle spores into the path of uninfected ants. But the zombie beetles don't clamp themselves to leaves, nor do they bite down on just any old flowers, they only chose those from the Asteraceae - better known as daisies. After biting down on a daisy, the infected beetle succumbs to the infection. But the fungus is not done with its host quite yet.

Slowly, the dead beetle's wing covers and wings unfurl throughout the night, revealing a bloated abdomen brimming with fungal growth. By dawn the wings and their covers are full extended. So why have daisies as the final resting place for these zombie beetles? Also why unfold the wings and their covers at night just before daybreak?

For soldier beetles daisies, are like pubs or cafe - that's where they congregate to feed and possibly socialise with other beetles. So by placing itself on a flower, the zombie beetle is in prime position to meet its uninfected cousins. Unlike the zombie ant fungus which sprinkle its spores onto the ground to infect foraging worker ants, the spores of E. lampyridarum stays on the zombie beetle because that's where uninfected beetles are likely to come into contact with them.

With the fungal bodies sprouting from the abdomen, it seems that unfolding the wings would help expose the infective spores to potential host. However, there might be another reason for the wings to be unfolded. The researchers of this study suggested it actually serves the function of making the fungus-ridden corpse more attractive to uninfected beetles. Having the zombie beetle's wings open just before daybreak is also tailored to suit the daily routine of these beetles which are more likely to visit daisies in the morning. You can imagine that an unsuspecting goldenrod soldier beetle would visit a flower for a drink in the morning, meet some attractive looking beetles while it is there, only to end up with a fungal infection that will eventually take over them in body and mind

While some degree of mind-control is involved in getting the beetles to bite down on flowers, unfolding the wings seems to be a purely mechanical process. The wing unfolds long after the host has died, but the fungal growth propagate in such a way that it pushes the connective tissue at base of the beetle's wings and forces them to unfold. The fungus acts like the hand in a puppet, animating the beetle's dead body as if it is some kind of chitinous marionette.

But not all the infected beetles eventually become flower-clampers, some infected beetles simply die without ever climbing onto or clamping onto a daisy. In that case, the beetle are filled with thousands of resting spores, which unlike the ones on the zombie beetles, are not immediately infective. But those spores can last for a long time in the environment. For those beetles, when their bodies hit the ground and are broken apart by scavengers and microbes, they end up seeding the soil with a bank of viable spores.

So whereas the purpose of the infective spores on those flower-clamping zombie beetle is to spread the infection far and wide in the moment, those resting spores are an investment for the future - they are hardy and resistant, and their purpose is to wait in the soil for the next season, when they will unleash a brand new wave of zombifying plague.

Reference:
Steinkraus, D. C., Hajek, A. E., & Liebherr, J. K. (2017). Zombie soldier beetles: Epizootics in the goldenrod soldier beetle, Chauliognathus pensylvanicus (Coleoptera: Cantharidae) caused by Eryniopsis lampyridarum (Entomophthoromycotina: Entomophthoraceae). Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 148: 51–59

Ophiocordyceps pseudolloydii

The Cordyceps fungus has become a fixture in popular media, at least as the go-to comparison/cause for fictional human zombies. The nominal Cordyceps that most people think of is probably Ophiocordyceps unilateralis - the infamous "zombie ant fungus". But what most people don't realise is that there isn't just "the Cordyceps fungus" - that is just a single species out of many ant-infecting fungi in the Ophiocordyceps genus. That's right - there are multiple species of zombie ant fungi and they are all different. Each of them have evolved their own ways of getting the most out of their ant hosts.

Photo of infected ants from Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 of this paper

The species featured in today's blog post is Ophiocrodyceps pseudolloydii, and it is found in central Taiwan. This fungus specifically targets a tiny ant called Dolichoderus thoracicus. In the forest of central Taiwan are so-called "ant graveyards" - areas with high density of Cordyceps-infected zombie ants. Such sights are familiar to scientists who study these ant-fungi relationships, indeed, such "ant graveyards" have been found in other parts of the world where ants and Cordyceps fungi co-occur.

A group of scientists set out to document the behaviour and position of ants which have been mummified by O. pseudolloydii. One key thing they observed was that no matter where the zombie ants were found in the forest, the head of the dead ant tends to be pointed towards the direction of openings in the forest canopy. This indicates that the fungus might be using sunlight that comes through the canopy as a cue to steer the host ants into position.

Like other ant-infected Cordyceps fungi, O. pseudolloydii places the host ant in a position which is ideal for spreading its spores, without being dried out in open air. This usually means placing the ant underneath a leaf. But the fungus needs some way of anchoring the ant to the leaf before it can mummify the host and start sprouting into a fruiting body. Ophiocordyceps unilateralis induces a "death grip" in the zombified ants, whereby the ant locks its mandible around the vein of a leaf to secure it in place.

But O. pseudolloydii does not do that - instead of using the ant's mandible, O. pseudolloydii simply sprout a dense mass of fungal tissue which binds the ant to the underside of a leaf. So why doesn't it simply do what its more famous cousin does and make the ant bite down on a leaf vein? Possibly because the ant which O. pseudolloydii infects is much smaller than the carpenter ant which O. unilateralis parasitises. Compared with the carpenter ant workers which can grow up to 25 millimetres (about an inch) in length, the workers of D. thoracicus are merely 4 millimetres long. With such a tiny host a dense mat of fungal tissue is enough to anchor the ant in place.

By doing so, this might allow the fungus to save on making the mind-altering chemical to induce the leaf-vein biting behaviour, which can possibly allow it to produce more spores instead. All Ophiocordyceps pseudolloydii needs to do is make sure the ant is intoxicated enough to crawl to the right spot, and once that is done, the fungus will take care of the rest.

Reference:
Chung, T. Y., Sun, P. F., Kuo, J. I., Lee, Y. I., Lin, C. C., & Chou, J. Y. (2017). Zombie ant heads are oriented relative to solar cues. Fungal Ecology 25: 22-28.

Leucochloridium paradoxum (revisited)

Parasites manipulating their hosts' appearance and behaviour is one aspect of parasitology which seems to have captured the public's imagination. The idea of body-snatching parasitic horrors taking over a host in both body and mind is one that evokes (and exceeds) the scenarios of many horror movies. Among the more well-known example of such parasitic body-snatchers is Leucochloridium paradoxum - the infamous zombie snail parasite, also referred to as the "green brood sacs".

But while L. paradoxum is the most well-known among its kind, it is just one of about a dozen different species in the Leucochloridium genus, all of which infect small land snails (mostly amber snails) and produce the pulsating brood sacs that people recognise. Traditionally, scientists have used the different colours and shapes of the brood sacs to tell apart different Leucochloridium species. More recently, this has been supplemented with genetic analysis, which has confirmed the validity of using brood sac colour and shape for species identification.

Left: A snail infected with two different Leucochloridium Right: Broodsacs of L. paradoxum and L. perturbatum from a double-infected snail
Photos from Fig. 1 of this paper 

In this study, researchers from Russia apply both techniques to examine cases of multiple Leucochloridium infections. Yes, as if being host to a single species of mind-manipulating parasite isn't bad enough, an amber snail can get infected with two (or more)! The researchers examined snails collected from the town of Lyuban in Russia, and upon dissecting them, found that while most of the infected snails were parasitised by the infamous L. paradoxum, a few snails had both L. paradoxum (green brood sacs) and another species call L. perturbatum (brown brood sacs). While simultaneous infections of different flukes species in snails are not uncommon, they also came across the first recorded case of a snail that was infected with three Leucochloridium species - L. paradoxum, L perturbatum, and the third species L. vogtianum which aren't as colourful, but was covered in warty projections

In other trematodes, competition between fluke asexual stages within the snails usually end up with one species overwhelming the other and gaining monopoly on the host. So it is possible that those snails that harboured multiple infection were merely be in the middle of a transitional state before one of the parasite colony is eliminated by the other. Had the snail been examined much later on, it might have revealed only a single parasite colony without any traces of a prior cohabitation with another species.

What most people might not know about Leucochloridium is that the prominent brood sacs are merely a part of an asexually-produced parasite colony inside the host snail. Unlike the asexual stages of many other trematodes which exist as genetically-identical but physically discrete stages call sporocysts or rediae, the asexual stages of Leucochloridium are stitched together into a writhing mass. This living colony is differentiated into different parts in a way that is comparable to the colonies of siphonophores such as the Portuguese Man'O'War. At centre of the parasitic mass, deep inside the snail's body, is where embryonic parasites are produced. As the embryos develop, they move through the colony's branches and into the extremities that form the colourful brood sacs, each packed full of mature parasite larvae that are ready to infect a bird.

This study also revealed another observation which provides insight into how these parasites reach the bird final host. The usual story is that infected snail are manipulated by the parasite into crawling to an exposed location where they can be easily spotted by hungry birds. The bird then mistaken the snail's pulsating, brood sac-engorged eyestalks for caterpillars, and peck them off. This is a classic story of parasite manipulation, told many times in multiple books and documentaries. While the validity of this story was partly demonstrated in 2013 when a study was published showing snails infected with Leucochlordium are indeed attracted to exposed and well-lit locations, it has yet to be demonstrated whether this actually enhance the likelihood of them (or at least their parasite) being eaten by birds

Broodsacs of L. paradoxum leaving the host snail. From Fig. 1 of this paper

But the researchers in this study observed that those pulsating brood sacs are not limited to expressing themselves in the snail's eyestalks. These sacs of parasite larvae can in fact leave the snail - possibly by rupturing through the snail's body wall. If the brood sacs of these parasites can exit the snail on their own and remain viable while still pulsating in the outside world for a brief period of time, then that significantly alter the above oft-repeated narrative of how this parasite is transmitted to its final host.

The parasitised snails might not need to have its eyes pecked out by the bird for Leucochloridium to reach its final host after all. Instead of treating the snail as a sacrificial lamb, the parasite could be using it as a unwitting courier that brings itself to an exposed location, drop off a few brood sacs, then those twitching brood sacs would attract the attention of a hungry bird on their own. It is still not a pleasant life for the infected snail - it is still stuck with a constantly regenerating parasite colony which is taking up almost a quarter of its body mass, but at least Leucochloridium would not be adding further injuries to insult by soliciting a avian attack.

Reference:
Ataev, G. L., Zhukova, A. A., Tokmakova, А. S., & Prokhorova, Е. E. (2016). Multiple infection of amber Succinea putris snails with sporocysts of Leucochloridium spp.(Trematoda). Parasitology Research 115:3203–3208.

P.S. Leucochloridium is a very striking-looking parasite and has been subjected to numerous artistic interpretations, so here's one of my own in the form of a Parasite Monster Girl version of a Leucochloridium-infected snail.

Tylodelphys sp.

There are many examples in nature where parasites are able to alter their host's behaviour in some way. More recently, some scientists have been investigating just how the parasite are altering or controlling host behaviour. Most of them had looked at the chemicals secreted by the parasites to lull the host into compliance, but the study we're featuring today looked at something different - how the behaviour of the parasite itself can affect the behaviour of the host.

Left: Histology section of an infected bully's eye from Fig. 1. of the paper (r = retina, l = lens, m = metacercariae [flukes])
Right: Tylodelphys in the eye of a common bully from this video

The star of today's post is Tylodelphys - a parasitic fluke which infects a small freshwater fish in New Zealand call the common bully. In order for this parasite to complete its life cycle, Tylodelphys must enter the gut of a fish-eating bird, which would naturally involve the unfortunate fish being eaten by the said bird. While it is in the common bully, Tylodelphys dwells in its host's eyes in the vitreous liquid between the lens and the retina (see video here).

Unlike other species of flukes which turn into dormant cysts at a similar stage of development, Tylodelphys stays active and free to roam around inside the fish's eye - which provides it with plenty of opportunity to get up to all kinds of parasitic hi-jinx. When Tylodelphys larvae are crawling around inside a fish's eye and happen to get in between the retina and the lens, this can partially blind the fish and prevent it from being able to notice incoming predators such as birds.

To examine what Tylodelphys gets up to during the day, researchers at the Otago Parasitology Lab collected some common bullies and gave them eye examinations using an opthalmoscope (yes, like the one used for your eye exam). Using the opthalmoscope, they captured a series of short videos of the infected fish's eyes at different time of day, and watched what eye flukes got up to. They also performed histology to examine if the flukes are damaging the fish's eyes.

The bullies they examined varied in how heavily infested their eyes were - this range from just having a single fluke in the eye, or it can be up to seventeen flukes, with the average being about seven. Living in a crowded eye is not good for the parasites either, as the researchers found that flukes from heavily infected fish are comparatively smaller. But despite being found in a vital and sensitive part of the host body, Tylodelphys was otherwise a relatively benign tenant - they didn't mess up any eye tissue.

Compare this with other species of eye flukes which can cause cataracts in the eye of their fish host, Tylodelphys seems rather well behaved. However, that does not mean Tylodelphys isn't bad news for the bully - just that its modus operandi is more subtle. Instead of impairing the fish's sight by damaging the eye, as mentioned the above, when the flukes position themselves in front of the retina, they act like internal blinkers. Surprisingly, fish that are more heavily infected didn't have their retina more covered up by the flukes than less heavily infected fish, which means it's not simply the sheer number of flukes that blinds the fish - it's something else the flukes are doing.

Tylodelphys  has a daily routine and shifts its position in the eye throughout the day. During day time, the flukes sit between the lens and the retina, blocking the host's line of sight. But at night, they settle down to the bottom of the eye, allowing the fish to see properly again. But if Tylodelphys is trying to get its host eaten by a predator, why doesn't it just stay in front of the retina all the time? That is probably because not all predators are the same for Tylodelphys.

During the day, the main predators of bullies are fish-eating birds (which are Tylodelphys' final host), whereas at night, the main predators are longfin eels (which are not suitable as host), so it'll be good for to the fluke if their host fish can still see and avoid the incoming predators at night. So the flukes keep this fish's eyes covered during the day, but move aside to not get in the way at night, and this seems to follow a circadian rhythm.

While this helps the fluke reach its final bird host, the reason why this behaviour manifests probably has nothing to do with trying to change the host's behaviour. As mentioned above, unlike other flukes that become a dormant cyst at this stage of development, Tylodelphys keeps growing so it needs to feed - and the only thing around to eat in the eye of a fish is the fluid in the eye's vitreous body. The partial blinding of the fish host during daytime might simply be a side-effect of the parasite's feeding routine.

So while the fluke moves around in the fish's eye to get its daily dose of eye jelly, this also produce a useful side-effect by making the host more vulnerable to fish-eating birds. Such "useful side-effects" could be how many parasite host manipulation tactics have evolved. Indeed, that is often how evolution often work; co-opting preexisting features and behaviours into new roles. To understand how a parasite affect the behaviour of its host, sometimes perhaps it is best to start with studying the behaviour of the parasite itself.

Reference:
Stumbo, A.D., and R. Poulin. 2016. Possible mechanism of host manipulation resulting from a diel behaviour pattern of eye-dwelling parasites? Parasitology 143: 1261-1267

Anomotaenia brevis

There are many examples of parasites altering the behaviour of their hosts, and some of them turn their hosts into functionally different animals compared with their uninfected counterparts. When this occurs in highly social animals, this effects can cascade onto other members of the group. Anomotaenia brevis is a tapeworm which happens to be one of many parasite species which have been documented to modify their host's appearance and/or behaviour in some way.

Photo by Sara Beros, used with permission

While the adult tapeworm lives a pretty ordinary life in the gut of a woodpecker, the larva uses a worker ant as a place to grow and a vehicle to reach the bird host. Specifically, they infect Temnothorax nylanderi - a species of ant found in oak forests of western Europe. These ants nest in naturally occurring cavities in trees such as sticks or acorns and the colony consists of a single ant queen surrounded by several dozen worker ants. These ants are a regular part of the woodpecker's diet so there's a fairly reasonable chance that the tapeworm will reach its final destination if it waited around for long enough. But A. brevis is not content with just leaving it to chance.

Worker ants can become infected through eating bird faeces which are contaminated with the parasite's eggs. As the tapeworm larvae grow inside the ant's body, these infected worker ants become noticeably different from their uninfected counterpart; they smell different (determined by the layer of hydrocarbon chemicals on their cuticle), they're smaller, they have yellow (instead of brown) cuticles, spend most of their time sitting around in the nest, and for some reason their uninfected nestmates are more willing to dote on these tapeworm-infected ants rather than healthy ones. They essentially become a different animal to the healthy workers, and other ant parasites have been known to alter their host to such a degree that parasitised individuals were initially mistaken as belonging to an entirely different species.

When scientists investigated the prevalence of A. brevis in nature, they found that about thirty percent of the ant colonies they came across have at least some infected workers. While in some nests only a few of the workers are infected, in other cases over half the workers are carrying tapeworms. Furthermore, they also found a few of the workers (2%) were infected but had yet to manifest the symptoms associated A. brevis. When over half the work force of a colony is under the spell of a body-snatching parasite, that must affect the colony in some way. So how does this affect the ant colony as a whole?

During their development, infected ants have higher survival rate and far more of them (97.2%) reach adulthood compared with uninfected (56.3-69.5%) ants. This make sense from the perspective of the parasite's transmission as it needs its host to stay alive for as long as possible to get inside a woodpecker. But it seems to also affected their uninfected sisters because uninfected worker ants in a colony which has parasitised workers also have lower survival rates than those from colonies free of any tapeworm-infected ants. But A. brevis also affects the colony's functioning in other ways as well.

The scientists behind the paper being featured today conducted a series of experiments where they manipulated the composition (and in doing so, parasite prevalence) of experimental ant colonies. Since T. nylanderi colonies regularly experience take-over and/or merging with other colonies, introducing or remove new ants into the experimental colonies would not cause them to exhibit unnatural behaviours as it is not too different what would usually occur in nature anyway. They set up colonies with different proportion of A. brevis-infected workers and tested how they responded to different types of disturbances.

They simulated a woodpecker attack by cracking open the experimental ant nests and seeing how long it took for them to evacuate. Under a simulated attack, about half of the healthy worker escaped (48-58.9%) but very few of the tapeworm-infected workers escaped (3.2%), which is exactly what the tapeworm wants - remember, the parasite needs to be eaten by a woodpecker to complete its lifecycle - so when one comes knocking, the tapeworm gets it host to sit tight and prepared to be sacrificed.

They also simulated intrusion from ants of a different colony or species by pitting individual invading ants against their experimental colonies. These invaders consisted of a mix of infected and uninfected individuals from nests which contained some or no infected nestmates. When confronting ants from other colonies, they were the most aggressive against the intruder if it was of a different species (in this case, T. affinis), but when it comes to other T. nylanderi ants, they responded more aggressively if the intruder from a different colony was harbouring tapeworm larvae.

In contrast, they were pretty chill about the presence of tapeworm-infected ants if it was one of their own nestmate. But the tapeworm also affected colony aggression in another way - the research team noted that colonies with many infected workers were also less aggressive overall towards any invaders. Not only does A. brevis alter its host's appearance and behaviour, it also seem to cause the host's nestmates to be more chilled out.

Parasites can manipulate their host in some astonishing ways, and the host's altered behaviour and/or appearance has been described as the parasite's "extended phenotype". But when the host is a social animal that is surrounded by many other group members, the parasite's influences can extend well beyond the body of its immediate host, and manifest in the surrounding kins and cohorts as well.

Reference:
Beros, S., Jongepier, E., Hagemeier, F., & Foitzik, S. (2015). The parasite's long arm: a tapeworm parasite induces behavioural changes in uninfected group members of its social host. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 282: 20151473

Leptorhynchoides thecatus

Photo by Scott Bauer

Life is dangerous for a little crustacean like a freshwater amphipod. There are all kinds of things out there that would like to make a meal out of you, so you would sure want to get out of the way at the first sign of any would-be predator. While our sense of smell is relatively poor, other animals live in a far more aromatic and pungent world, filled all kinds of chemical signals. When it comes to chemoreception (what we would consider smell and taste), amphipods can tell the presence of a predator in main two ways, either smell their presence directly through the kairomones (basically BO) they release, or indirectly from the alarm chemicals of dead compatriots (so essentially, the scent of death).

However, this can be big problem for some parasites of these little crustaceans, as they need to be eaten by a predatory animal in order to complete their life cycles. In that case, some of these parasites have ways of making sure that their host never see (or in other ways sense) it coming when a predator comes knocking.

Proboscis of adult L. thecatus
modified from here

Hyalella azteca is a common species of amphipod that is found in many freshwater habitats in North America. It is also host to the larval stage of a thorny-head worm call Leptorhynchoides thecatus. For this parasite to complete its life-cycle the amphipod host needs to be eaten by a fish - such as a green sunfish - something that the amphipod is certainly not okay with. However, regardless of what the amphipod wants, the parasite needs to reach a fish's gut, and it does so by overriding the crustacean's usual response to alarm chemicals in the water. A pair of scientists conducted an experiment to see this in action.

First they made some scent solutions that correspond to the ones that the amphipods would usually respond to in the wild. Alarm chemical from dead or injured H. azteca was relatively straight forward to make as it simply involved mushing up some amphipods in a bit of water to get this "scent of death". But to get some liquid fish BO, they collected water from a tank housing green sunfish which had been circulating for a day without a carbon filter, so the water has been saturated with the "essence of fish" as it were (I'd imagine neither scent would sell all that well if you release it as a line of perfume or cologne).

To see how the amphipods reacted to the scents they've prepared, the scientists placed each H. azteca individually in an observation chamber which has a small shelter at the bottom. After it has settle down, they either drip a bit of that "scent of death", or some of the "essence of fish", or just plain water into the chamber, and watched the amphipod's response.

When uninfected H. azteca catch a whiff of fish BO or the scent of their dead companions, they hid in the shelter and try to keep still (especially at the scent of dead amphipods). But not the amphipods infected with L. thecatus - regardless of what's in the water, they just stayed completely oblivious and carried on with whatever they were doing as usual, as if the scientists had just added plain water to the chamber. If it had been in the wild, those infected amphipods would have been quickly snapped up by a hungry sunfish (and made L. thecatus really happy, if worms are capable of being happy...).

Being visual animals, we humans tend to take more notice when parasites manipulate their hosts in a flashy way that catches our eyes. But there are other ways that parasites can manipulate the sensory world of their hosts in order to complete their life cycle. We have not paid as much attention to those other senses - perhaps it is time that we do so.

Reference:
Stone, C. F., & Moore, J. (2014). Parasite-induced alteration of odour responses in an amphipod–acanthocephalan system. International Journal for Parasitology 44: 969-975.

Anilocra nemipteri

Photo from Figure 1 of the paper

The parasite in the study being featured today makes a living riding around on the top of a fish's head and occasionally gnawing on its face. It is in the same family as the infamous tongue-biter, the Cymothoidae, though technically this one is more of a face-hugger.

Anilocra nemipteri is found on the Great Barrier Reef of Australia and it makes a living by hitching a ride (and feeds) from the bridled monocle bream, Scolopsis bilineata. It is a pretty common parasite - in some areas, up to 30 percent of monocle bream carry one of these crustaceans on their head like a nasty blood-sucking beret that stay attached for years.

As you can see from the photo, A. nemipteri is a fairly big parasites comparing with the size of the fish (in some case they can reach as almost one-third the length of the host fish!), and having a parasite of that size hanging off your face is going to be quite a drag - literally. That is bad news for a little fish like the monocle bream that needs to make a quick getaway from any hungry predators on the reef. So just how much of a drag is A. nemipteri? A related species - Anilocra apogonae - which clings to the cardinal fish (Cheilodipterus quinquelineatus) is known to cause their host to swim slower and have lower endurance. Does the same apply for A. nemipteri and the monocle bream?

To find out, scientists compared how quickly the fish can respond to an attack and their Flight Initiation Distance (FID) in both a laboratory setting and in the field. The FID is the distance from a predator at which an animal decides to flee - risk-takers have a shorter FID. They divided the monocle bream into three different groups: parasite-free fish, fish carrying an A. nemipteri, infected fish which just had their parasite removed.

Photo from Figure 1 of the paper

The research team simulated an attack by a bird (with a weighted PVC pipe) on fish in specially-designed experimental tanks and filmed the response to measure the fish's reaction time to the attack. Even though one would think all that face-gnawing from A. nemipteri would have weakened their host, and not to mention the body of the parasite itself causing significant drag, the escape performance of parasitised fish was not all that different from unparasitised - they reacted and got away from the attack just as quickly as their unburdened buddies. In the field experiment, the scientists donned snorkelling gear and tried to approach any monocle breams they spotted and measured how close they could get to the fish before they fled. There, they found parasitised fish have a slightly shorter FID than parasite-free fish, but not significantly so.

Fish that are infected by A. nemipteri are smaller than uninfected ones, and it just so happen that smaller fish tend to allow predators to get closer to them before fleeing. But whether this is due to the parasite is another matter. Are parasitised fish smaller because their growth have been stunt by A. nemipteri? Or does this face-hugger simply prefer smaller fish because larger and older fish might have built up an immunity to it?

Though it may seem less exciting when we find a parasite doesn't cause much behavioural changes in its host, it is vital to our understanding of host-parasite relationships. Perhaps it means the host is able to compensate for the presence of the parasite. Also it is not clear what the long term cost of having A. nemipteri might be over the life time of the fish. It is also important to treat such a case in its context. Unlike other parasite which have a complex life-cycle and depend upon its host getting eaten by a predator to reach maturity, A. nemipteri is an external parasite that simply sticks to a host and stay for life - if the parasitised fish is eaten by a predator, it'll go down with the host like a bit of garnish and be digested too.

So it is probably just as well that A. nemipteri is not too much of a drag to have around.

Reference:
Binning, S. A., Barnes, J. I., Davies, J. N., Backwell, P. R., Keogh, J. S., & Roche, D. G. (2014). Ectoparasites modify escape behaviour, but not performance, in a coral reef fish. Animal Behaviour 93: 1-7.

Loxothylacus panopei

Photo by Inken Kruse via the Hare Lab

Some parasites can manipulate their host's behaviour in very spectacular ways, but there are also other parasites that change their host's habits in more subtle manners. While such alteration to the host can seem fairly minor, they can still result in some very profound impact on the rest of the ecosystem.

There is a group of parasitic barnacles call Rhizocephala (the most well-known species is Sacculina carcini) that are capable of castrating their host, turning them into unwitting babysitters that nurture the parasites' brood. The infected crab display some very obvious changes to their behaviour, and in some cases, their appearance. But the study we are featuring today shows that apart from turning them into doting mothers for the parasite's babies, these barnacles can also alter the crab's behaviour in less obvious ways that have ramifications for other marine inhabitants.

The flatback mud crab (Eurypanopeus depressus) lives in estuaries on the coast of South Carolina and it is infected by a species of rhizocephalan call Loxothylacus panopei. In addition to doing the usual host castrating and commandeering trick, L. panopei also changes how this crab responds to potential prey. Usually, the mud crab has an omnivorous diet, dining on algae as well as worms, smaller crustaceans, and sponges. Sometimes they may also have a crack at more armoured prey like mussels. But crabs that are infected with L. panopei lose their appetite for such shell-covered fares.

When researchers offered uninfected crabs with piles of mussels, the crabs acted like they were at an all-you-can-eat seafood buffet and ate as much as they can - the more mussels the researchers presented them with, the more they ate. But no matter how many mussels they offered to crabs that were infected with L. panopei, they simply eat one and call it a day. The parasitised crabs also took longer to get their act together and this seems to be related to the size of the crab's parasite - the larger the parasite has grown, the longer the crab takes to start digging into a mussel.

Based on a field survey of the estuary where the study took place, the researcher concluded that about a fifth of the crab at that location were infected with L. panopei. Given the effects that L. panopei has on their crab's appetite for shellfish, it seems that the mussels might have an unlikely ally in the form a parasitic barnacle. The finding of this study share some parallel to another paper that we featured on this blog earlier this year, on the muscle-wasting parasite that infects a predatory shrimp and curb its otherwise ravenous appetite.

Ecosystems are made up of complicated networks of biological interactions and parasites can mediate predator-prey interactions in different, and sometimes conflicting ways. While some parasites can make prey animals more vulnerable or accessible to predators, there are other like L. panopei that may be reducing the appetite of the said predators. The subtle interplay of such parasite-mediated interactions are often overlooked or ignored, but their effects on the ecosystem are certainly there if you know what to look for.

Reference:
Toscano, B. J., Newsome, B., & Griffen, B. D. (2014). Parasite modification of predator functional response. Oecologia 175: 345-352.

Cucumispora dikerogammari

Invasive species can be very disruptive - cane toads, rabbits, water hyacinth, and zebra mussels are just a few well-known examples of species that have been introduced to areas outside of their original geographic range and have caused extensive ecological disruption in their new home. One of the hypotheses for why some introduced species become so successful when they arrive at a new region is called the "enemy release hypothesis". In their new home, introduced species run amok as they are no longer hounded by their usual foes that would otherwise keep their population in check.

Top: A heavily infected amphipod
Bottom: Spores of C. dikerogammari
Photo from here

Dikerogammarus villosus is an amphipod (a little, shrimp-like crustacean) from the Ponto-Caspian that has invaded western and central Europe, and is now also found in the United Kingdom. They might only grow up to a little over an inch long, but they are voracious little predators that eat everything smaller than themselves, including each other. Released from their usual predators and parasites, D. villosus rips through the freshwater life of its new neighbourhood. But they have not completely escaped from their past foes; one parasite has managed to come along for the ride, and it is a microsporidian called Cucumispora dikerogammari.

As far as the parasite goes, Cucumispora dikerogammari is a pretty nasty one. It invades the host's muscles, reproduces prolifically and eventually kills the host by overwhelming it with sheer numbers. There is some concern that this parasite can spill over into the native invertebrates and add insult to injury to the local stream life. But on another hand, a new study shows that this parasite might be one of the few things holding back this voracious invasive amphipod from causing even more destruction.

A group of scientists from France conducted a study to looked at how C. dikerogammari affects the activity levels and appetite of D. villosus. They observed the behaviour of both infected and uninfected amhipods in a water-filled glass tube and noticed that amphipods at a late stage of infection that are visibly "filled to the brim" with parasite spores are actually more active than healthy amphipods or those that are not visibly parasitised because they are at a much earlier stage of the infection.

Close-up of a C. dikerogammari spore from here

Furthermore, they also presented amphipods with midge larvae (also known to some as "bloodworms") to see how many they ate. Both infected and uninfected D. villosus pounced on those insect larvae, but the heavily infected amphipods ate far less than the healthy ones. For whatever reason, this parasite seems to cause D. villosus to lose its appetite, and given this crustacean's reputation of eating everything that it can get its claws around, this may have significant ecological ramifications. It could mean that C. dikerogammari may be subtly reducing the impact these amphipods have on the areas where they have been introduced.

But why would heavily-infected D. villosus, which would have much of their muscle mass already converted to parasite spores by C. dikerogammari, be more active? Well, it could just be an odd manifestation of the disease, but if it is, it is certainly a useful one for this parasite - as it depends upon cannibalism for transmission to new hosts. Dikerogammarus villosus are rather homely creatures and usually prefer to stay under a shelter and wait for potential prey to wander by. By getting their host out and about, C. dikerogammari might increase the chances that its host will either run into one of its cannibalistic buddies, or die out in the open where it can be scavenged by other D. villosus.

It seems that for this little invasive amphipod, no matter how far you go, you can never really run away from your past (foes).

Reference:
Bacela-Spychalska, K., Rigaud, T., & Wattier, R. A. (2013). A co-invasive microsporidian parasite that reduces the predatory behaviour of its host Dikerogammarus villosus (Crustacea, Amphipoda). Parasitology 141: 254-258.

Gordionus chinensis

Hairworms are known for their ability to make their host go for an impromptu (and terminal) swim in a stream or a pond, but by doing that they are not just sending ripples through the water, but also into the surrounding ecosystem. The paper we are looking at today features a species of hairworm from Japan call Gordionus chinensis - this parasite infects three different species of forest-dwelling camel crickets from the genus Diestrammena.

Photo by Danue Sachiko from here

The scientists who conducted the study that this paper is based on wanted to find out what happens to the the cricket population and their hairworm parasites after their home forest has been cut down. They conducted an observational field study at an experimental forest in the upper parts of the Totsu River at Nara Prefecture, Japan. The forest was originally clear-cut in 1912 and 1916 and since then, parts of it have been replanted and cut down at different point in time over the last century. Each study site corresponds with a different replanted forests of Japanese cypress ranging from 3 to 48 years old.

These scientists found that the camel crickets began returning a few years after a forest has been replanted, their abundance steadily increasing and eventually reaching a peak after the forest has been standing for at least 30 years. But their hairworm parasites did not return with similar gusto. In fact, they estimated that only second-growth forests that are more than 50 years old have hairworm populations that are as abundance as those found at undisturbed sites.

One possible reason for the hairworms' slow recovery is their complex life cycle which requires infection of more than one host. The replanted forest might be lacking some of the other host G. chinensis needs to complete its life cycle. Because parasites has such a negative public image, a forest which is free of parasites (or at least a specific parasite) might sound good to most people. But these hairworms actually play a very vital role in the ecosystem.

By causing their cricket host to jump into a stream, they actually serve as a kind of fast food delivery service for the fish living in those streams. A cricket infected with a hair worm is 20 times more likely to stumble into a stream and become fish food than an uninfected cricket - so fish which would not usually get to feed on such large land-loving insects on a regular basis can now do so thanks to the hairworm, and it has calculated that this straight-to-your-stream food delivery service accounts for 60% of the trout population's energy intake in some watersheds.

For hairworms, new forests just do not have the same creature comforts of old forests. And if you are a keen angler or simply appreciate a fish-rich stream - you have a parasite to thank for all the fishes.

Reference:
Sato, T., Watanabe, K., Fukushima, K., & Tokuchi, N. (2014). Parasites and forest chronosequence: Long-term recovery of nematomorph parasites after clear-cut logging. Forest Ecology and Management, 314: 166-171.