Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
University of Groningen Decoys in Predation and Parasitism Wilkinson, Michael Published in: Default journal IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below. Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Publication date: 2003 Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database Citation for published version (APA): Wilkinson, M. H. F. (2003). Decoys in Predation and Parasitism. Default journal. Copyright Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum. Download date: 17-06-2017 Comments on Theoretical Biology, 8: 321–338, 2003 Copyright # 2003 Taylor & Francis 0894-8550/03 $12.00 + .00 DOI: 10.1080/08948550390206830 Decoys in Predation and Parasitism Michael H. F. Wilkinson Institute for Mathematics and Computing Science, University of Groningen, The Netherlands Predator-prey or host-parasite dynamics can be altered by the presence of other species through several mechanisms. One such mechanism is the ‘‘decoy effect,’’ which itself can take a variety of forms. In its simplest form, the third species, which is inedible to the predator, nonetheless interferes with predation because the predator spends time investigating these decoys. The effect of this is to reduce instability in the ecosystem by damping the Lotka-Volterra oscillations. This effect may be considerable in dense ecosystems such as the gut microflora. Other forms include the prey species creating decoys by autotomy of appendages, such as tails, in the case of certain lizards. Finally, decoys are created by various parasites to avoid elimination by the immune system. In this review the theoretical models and supporting observations for these forms of the decoy effect are discussed, and some refinements on the theory are proposed. In particular, a model for autotomy is extended, and the phenomenon of signaling unpalatability or toxicity is discussed within the context of the decoy effect. It is shown that such signaling will increase predation on edible competitors. Keywords: predator-prey dynamics, host-parasite dynamics, population dynamics, immune evasion, ecological stability, decoy effect Predator-prey and host-parasite systems are classical examples in mathematical modeling in ecology. Apart from the simplest two-species systems, several complications have been modeled involving other factors, such as the presence of other species. The effect of only one species on the system can be profound, either by preying on both species alike (Snyder and Ives Address Correspondence to Michael H. F. Wilkinson, Institute for Mathematics and Computing Science, University of Groningen, The Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected] 321 322 M. H. F. Wilkinson 2001), or by harming the prey, such as by causing increased predation (Mallory et al. 1983; Harmon et al. 2000), or protecting the prey through a variety of mechanisms. These mechanisms include protector species, as in the case of nesting colonies, where smaller bird species benefit from the aggressive behavior of larger birds in the same colonies toward predators (Pius and Leberg 1998), or information parasitism, where a species may benefit from the alarm raised by others (Nuechterlein 1981), and the decoy effect (Christensen et al. 1976; Vos et al. 2001; Wilkinson, 2001), which itself can take a variety of forms. In its simplest form, the third species, which is inedible to the predator (or unsuitable as host to the parasite), nonetheless interferes with predation because the predator spends time investigating these decoys. The effect of this is to increase stability in the ecosystem by damping the Lotka-Volterra oscillations (Vos et al. 2001; Wilkinson 2001). Usually, the effect requires a degree of specialization in the predator; that is, it must not be able to prey on the other species, otherwise it serves as alternative prey (Mallory et al., 1983). Specialization is quite prevalent among predators and parasites, whether microscopic (Drutz 1976; Christensen et al. 1976), or macroscopic (Vos et al. 2001). Besides, specialist predators are often put forward as biological pest or pathogen controls (Smith and Huggins 1983; Fratamico and Whiting 1995; Vos et al. 2001), so good insight into the population dynamics in more realistic (multispecies) ecosystems is important. One case that has been well studied is that of arthropod predator-prey systems, precisely because of the potential for biological pest control (Vos et al. 2001). Often the damage caused by the herbivore to the plants causes the plant to release mixtures of volatile substances, which act as attractants to predators (Pels and Sabelis 2000). Predators are able to distinguish the type of prey on the plant based on these mixtures. Therefore, the predators spend less time searching for prey than they would if no attractant chemicals were present. However, when multiple herbivore species infest plants, it becomes more difficult for the predator to identify the prey patches on the plant correctly, and the predators spend more time searching for prey as the number of predatorprey couples in the ecosystem increases (Vos et al. 2001). The most radical difference is in cases where there is no third species involved at all. In those cases the prey species produces its own decoys, which distract the predator long enough to effect an escape. Such cases include autotomy of body parts, such as tails or limbs (Arnold 1988; Punzo 1997; Miller and Byrne 2000), or production of clouds of ink in the case of squids. In the former case, the predator receives some reward for its efforts in that it at least has a body part to eat (Harris 1989; Miller and Byrne 2000). The cost to the prey may vary considerably, depending on the size of the autotomized body part, and on the degree to which mobility and fecundity are compromised (Guffey 1998; Brueseke et al. 2001; Miller and Byrne 2000; Downes and Shine 2001). Production of decoys is also used by certain pathogens to elude the immune system (Williamson et al. 1996; Ramasamy 1998; Sibona and Condat 2002). Decoys in Predation and Parasitism 323 In the following sections I discuss each of these different mechanisms and the mathematical models put forward to describe them. I end with a discussion of how the evolution of camouflage or warning coloration may be viewed from the decoy effect point of view. THE DECOY MECHANISM Christensen et al. (1976) describe the decoy effect in Fasciola hepatica (sheep liver fluke) miracidia, which infect the snail Lymnaea trunculata. They describe how the presence of non-host snails inhibits the ability of the parasite to find its host, depending in part on the non-host species (related=nonrelated). In a similar setting, Yousif et al (1998) found that Schistosoma mansoni (schistosomiasis parasite) miracidia were inhibited in their ability to find their host snail Biomphalaria alexandrina by the presence of several other snail species. In a different setting, the decoy effect as described in Wilkinson (2001) derives from observations of the lifestyle of Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus and some attempts to use them and bacteriophages for pathogen control (Westergaard and Kramer 1977; Smith and Huggins 1983; Jackson and Whiting 1992; Fratamico and Whiting 1995; Sarkar et al. 1996). Like bacteriophages, bacteria of the genus Bdellovibrio penetrate the outer envelope of their prey, take over control of the cell, and replicate inside, with the new cells emerging after lysis. Unlike phages, bdellovibrios are fast swimmers, but apparently do not use chemotaxis to find their prey (Straley and Conti 1977). This can lead them to waste time when encountering nonprey bacteria, as observed by Drutz (1976). In this section I describe the mathematical model as described for the bdellovibrio-bacterium predator prey system. In the following discussion I use the Monod model for growth of both predator and prey (Canale 1969), with and without extensions for maintenance energy costs (Nisbet et al. 1983). Note that the Monod model for the predator corresponds to the Holling type II predator model (e.g., DeAngelis 1992). In the case of bdellovibrios, maintenance energy must be taken into account, but not in the case of bacteriophages. Thus, the growth of microbial predators Y on prey species X1 is modeled as: my X1 dY ¼ Y D þ dy Y dt KX þ X1 ð1Þ in which my is the maximum specific growth rate, KX the saturation constant, D the dilution rate of the chemostat, and dy the starvation rate. The differential equation for species X1 is Vy X1 dX1 m1 X0 ¼ X Y DX1 dt K1 þ X0 1 KX þ X1 ð2Þ 324 M. H. F. Wilkinson in which X0 is the concentration of the limiting substrate, m1 is the maximum specific growth rate, K1 is the saturation constant, and Vy is the maximum specific uptake rate of prey by predator. The differential equation for the limiting substrate becomes dX0 X0 ¼ D ð S X0 Þ V1 X dt K1 þ X0 1 ð3Þ in which S is the input substrate concentration and V1 is the maximum specific uptake rate of X0 by X1 . Now consider the addition of a nonprey species X2 , which we assume to be present at a constant level, having no direct effect on either X0 by X1 . This allows us to study the effect of the simple presence of a decoy species independently of any other competition effect. Disregarding starvation, the predator can be in three states: free, bound to X1 , and bound to X2 . These complexes are denoted as ½X1 Y and ½X2 Y. Assume the rate of collisions is r per unit of prey or nonprey species per unit of predator. Furthermore, the prey=predator complex dissociates at a rate of k1 , and the nonprey=predator complex dissociates at a rate of k2 . However, only the dissociation of the first complex yields new predators, with a yield of yx þ 1. Since one phage or predator is lost in the forming of this complex, the net yield per unit of prey biomass is yx . This leads to the following set of differential equations: dYfree ¼ ðyx þ 1Þk1 ½X1 Y þ k2 ½X2 Y r ðX1 þ X2 ÞYfree dt ð4aÞ d ½ X1 Y ¼ k1 ½X1 Y þ rX1 Yfree dt ð4bÞ d ½ X2 Y ¼ k2 ½X2 Y þ rX2 Yfree dt ð4cÞ At (quasi-)steady state we have ½X1 Y ¼ r X Y k1 1 free and ½X2 Y ¼ r X Y k2 2 free Summing the Eqs. (4a, b, c) we find a growth rate of: my X1 Y dY yx k1 X 1 Y ¼ ¼ dt k1 =r þ X1 þ k1 X2 =k2 KX þ X1 þ Kinh X2 ð5Þ Decoys in Predation and Parasitism 325 with KX ¼ k1 =r and Kinh ¼ k1 =k2 . In this form we can recognize that the decoy effect is essentially a form of competitive inhibition (e.g., Vos et al. 2001; Wilkinson 2001). The Consequences for the Ecosystem In Wilkinson (2001), a detailed stability analysis is given based on the work of Canale (1969). Four different ‘‘modes’’ of operation can be identified (Kooi and Kooijman 1994): (0) total washout of both species; (I) stable prey population with washout of predator; (II) stable coexistence of predator and prey; and (III) unstable coexistence (limit cycle behavior). If predator and prey coexist, the (stable or unstable) focus is given by: 2 3 vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi !2 u u 16 V1 KX 7 t S K1 þ4K1 S 5 X0 ¼ 4S K1 2 m y D dy my D dy V1 KX ð6aÞ D þ dy KX X1 ¼ my D dy Y¼ D my m1 ð S X0 Þ X1 D þ d y Vy V1 ð6bÞ ð6cÞ with KX ¼ KX þ Kinh X2 : Thus it can be seen that the equilibrium concentration of prey is directly proportional to saturation constant KX and should therefore vary linearly with the concentration of decoys (of course, provided that the solution of Y is positive). The boundaries between modes 0 and I and between I and II as a function of the chemostat’s control parameters (dilution rate D and input concentration of the limiting substrate S) can be obtained analytically (Wilkinson 2001) and are shown in Figure 1. The parameter values used are from Nisbet et al. (1983) and Kooi and Kooijman (1994) (i.e., K1 ¼ 8mg=L, KX ¼ 9mg=L, m1 ¼ 0:5h1 , my ¼ 0:2h1 , V1 ¼ 1:25h1 , and Vy ¼ 0:3333h1 ). The zone boundary between zones II and III was obtained by local stability analysis of the steady-state solution. Figures 1a and 1b show the results for the double Monod model with metabolic costs (dy ¼ 0:01h1 ). Figures 1c and 1d show the transient behavior of the chemostat for the same metabolic parameters as 1a and 1b, respectively. Figures 1b and 1d show the stabilizing effect of decoys, with KX ¼ 2KX . As 326 M. H. F. Wilkinson FIGURE 1 Operating diagrams for chemostats containing microbial predator-prey systems with different numbers of decoys: (a) no decoys, that is, KX ¼ KX ¼ 9; (b) decoy present at a level that KX ¼ 18. In zone I, only prey survive, in zone II both predator and prey coexist in a stable equilibrium, and in zone III the system becomes unstable. Increasing KX reduces zone III and increases zone I. The stabilizing effect is also shown in (c) and (d), which show the transient behavior for the same parameter values as in (a) and (b), respectively. In the absence of decoys, the prey is driven to near extinction, whereas the presence of decoys leads to a reduction of only a factor of 3.6. Decoys in Predation and Parasitism 327 can be seen, increasing KX means that, for a given D, the predator can only be present in the ecosystem at all at a higher input substrate concentration than in the absence of decoys. PLANT SIGNALS AND THE DECOY EFFECT An interesting variant of the decoy effect is described by Vos et al. (2001). It is induced by volatile substances that are produced when certain plants are infested by herbivorous insects in response to the damage caused (Pels and Sabelis 2000). The volatile substances act as lures for predators that home in on their prey (or at least prey-dense plants) using these plant signals. In the model of Vos and coworkers (2001), there are N predator-herbivore pairs in the ecosystem, with each predator Yi preying on just one prey species Xi . The 2N differential equations describing this system are ! Vy Yi Xi dXi Xi w X P ¼r 1 Xj Xi dt K K i6¼j KX þ Xi þ Kinh Xj ð7aÞ my Yi Xi dYi P dy Yi ¼ dt KX þ Xi þ Kinh Xj ð7bÞ i6¼j i6¼j in which r is the maximum relative growth rate of herbivores, K the carrying capacity, and w the coefficient of competition between herbivores. Indices i and j run from 1 to N inclusive. As in the previous case, the inhibitory constant Kinh is attributed to time wasted inspecting patches containing nonprey herbivores, and the same damping of predator-prey oscillations as in the previous model occurs. The main differences between the model of Vos et al. (2001) and the previous (Wilkinson 2001) are the presence of multiple weakly coupled predator-prey pairs and the use of logistic growth for the prey, instead of the Monod model, which is more accurate for bacterial growth but is not used for macroscopic prey species. Vos et al. do not provide an analytical treatment of stability analysis; instead, they run simulations with N ranging from 1 to 8 for a number of different values of Kinh . Figure 2 shows the pronounced damping of predator-prey oscillations they found, using r ¼ 0:09, K ¼ 10; 000, KX ¼ 2000, w ¼ 0:1, my ¼ Vy ¼ 0:2, and dy ¼ 0:1, for different numbers of species and different values of Kinh AUTOTOMY: MAKING YOUR OWN DECOYS Autotomy of body parts to escape predators has evolved in several groups of both vertebrates (Arnold 1988) and invertebrates (Punzo 1997; Miller and 328 M. H. F. Wilkinson FIGURE 2 The decoy effect in coupled host-parasitoid systems according to Vos et al. (2001), in which only the parasitoid dynamics is shown: (a) a single host-parasitoid pair, with Kinh ¼ 0:1, showing large amplitude oscillations that almost drive the prey to extinction; (b) increasing the number of host-parasitoid pairs to 4 shows clear damping of oscillations; which is even more pronounced in (c), in which 7 pairs are present; finally, (d) shows a system with 4 pairs, in which Kinh ¼ 0:2, yielding a similar damping effect as in (c). Byrne 2000). Autotomy allows the prey to escape while the predator is occupied with the wriggling appendage. The amount of motion of the autotomized appendage appears to have some influence on the success of this strategy (Dial and Fitzpatrick 1983), and some body parts even secrete large amounts of mucus, presumably to enhance their effect as a decoy (Miller and Byrne 2000). Of course, there is a serious cost involved in the loss of a limb, though certain arachnids seem to suffer few ill effects (Guffey 1998; Brueseke et al. 2001). Besides, the predator does gain from eating the sacrificed body part (Miller and Byrne 2000). Harris (1989) developed mathematical models to describe the effect of autotomous defenses on predation. He starts by defining two groups of Decoys in Predation and Parasitism 329 prey: (1) intact prey X1 and (2) damaged prey X2 . Let the reproduction and death rates of Xi be denoted as mi and di , respectively. Note that the progeny of X2 are added to X1 . The recovery rate by which X2 is transformed back to X1 is r. Furthermore, assume that the predator Y grows by consuming only the autotomized appendages, and damaged prey is not attacked (or recovers before a second encounter). The set of differential equations governing this system are dX1 ¼ ðm1 d1 ÞX1 vy X1 Y þ ðm2 þ rÞX2 dt ð8aÞ dX2 ¼ vy X1 Y ðd2 þ rÞX2 dt ð8bÞ dY ¼ my X1 Y dy Y dt ð8cÞ As can be seen, predator growth is modeled using the Lotka-Volterra model. The steady-state solution is dy my ð9aÞ dy m 1 d1 my d2 m2 ð9bÞ d2 þ r m 1 d1 v y d 2 m2 ð9cÞ X1 ¼ X2 ¼ Y¼ For the solutions for X2 and Y to be positive, Harris derives that d2 > m2 ; that is, the damaged prey must have a higher death rate than reproductive rate, which is somewhat counterintuitive. There are several comments that should be made regarding the above model. First of all, no limits on growth of the prey other than predation are modeled, which is clearly unrealistic. Therefore, some of the predictions may have to be altered. Logistic growth would be an improvement. Second, prey satiation should also be included, using, for example, the Holling Type II model. Third, and more seriously, the assumption that damaged prey are not attacked is evidently not true. There is a great deal of literature devoted to the increased risk of predation of prey damaged through autotomy (Wilson 1992; Brueseke et al. 2000; Miller and Byrne 2000; Downes and Shine 2001). Furthermore, there is ample evidence that predators do succeed 330 M. H. F. Wilkinson in capturing prey despite the autotomous body part (Dial and Fitzpatrick 1983; Cooper and Vitt 1991; Punzo 1997; Brueseke et al. 2000). For example, Punzo (1997) reports that leg autotomy was only used successfully by the wolf spider Schizocosa avida in 16% of attacks by the scorpion Centruroides vittatus. Adding these effects we have Vy X1 Y dX1 X þ X2 ¼ r1 1 1 X1 KX þ X1 þ X2 dt K X þ X2 þ r 2 1 þ d2 1 þ r X2 K ð10aÞ dX2 Vy ðpe X1 X2 ÞY ¼ ðd2 þ rÞX2 KX þ X1 þ X2 dt ð10bÞ dY my ½ð1 we pe ÞX1 þ we X2 Y ¼ dy Y dt KX þ X1 þ X2 ð10cÞ with pe the probability of escape through autotomy and we the fraction of the body mass of each prey individual that escapes successfully; that is 1 we is the percentage of body mass lost through autotomy. Obviously, both pe and we must be 1. Logistic growth is modeled as usual, with r1 and r2 the maximum net reproductive rates for X1 and X2 , respectively. It is assumed that as the combined population approaches the carrying capacity K, that the reproductive rates decrease, whereas the death rate d2 of X2 stays constant. Furthermore, if the predator captures a damaged prey, it only obtains a fraction we of the food value it would obtain if it had caught an intact prey individual. The stability analysis for Eqs. (10a, b, c) is rather more complicated than that of (8a, b, c), and I am not aware of a discussion of (10a, b, c) or similar equations in the literature. However, Figure 3 shows the change in dynamics of the system for we ¼ 0:9, r1 ¼ 0:09, r2 ¼ 0:08, d2 ¼ 0:005, and all other parameters as in Figure 2, when pe changes from 0 (no autotomy) to 0.4 (40%) chance of escape through autotomy (after Cooper and Vitt 1991). The damping of predator-prey oscillation is again evident. Cooper and Vitt (1991) note that autotomous body parts that are conspicuous in some way are more effective as decoys, because they cause the predator to grab the conspicuous part with increased probability. Examples given by them are those of the lizards Eumeces fasciatus and E. laciteps, which have brightly colored tails. Let Pd be the probability of discovery, and Pe the probability of escape once detected. The probability of being captured Pc is Pc ¼ Pd ð1 Pe Þ ð11Þ Decoys in Predation and Parasitism 331 FIGURE 3 The effect of autotomy in predator-prey systems: (a) system as in Eqs. (10a,b,c) without autotomy strong oscillations occur; (b) given a 40% chance of escape using autotomy of body part of 10% of total weight, the predator-prey oscillations are damped out. Now suppose that within a population with cryptic coloration of the autotomizable body part a mutation occurs that increases the visibility of the body part. This increased visibility means that the probability of detection increases by an amount a, with 0 < a ð1 Pd Þ. Besides, the probability of escape is assumed to increase, due to the increased probability that the predator grabs the prey by the autotomizable body part. Let this increase in the conditional probability of escape be b, with 0 < b ð1 Pe Þ. The probability of capture Pc0 of the mutant is Pc0 ¼ ðPd þ aÞð1 Pe bÞ ð12Þ If Pc0 < Pc , or b>a 1 Pe Pd þ a ð13Þ the mutant is favored. This occurs when b or Pd is large, or a is small compared to either. Furthermore, if 1 Pe is small (i.e., the chance of escape is large) the mutant is also favored, which can be explained by the fact that if detected individuals usually escape, they can more easily afford to be conspicuous. By contrast, crypsis is favored if the prey is most often captured once detected. Cooper and Vitt (1991) go on to postulate power-law relationships between b and a to derive equilibrium conditions, but do not provide motivation for the relationship or stability analysis for the equilibrium found, so the significance of this is unknown (as they themselves note). They extend the model further to account for the effect of conspicuousness in multiple stages of the predator-prey encounter. Let Pcjd be the probability for being captured once detected, Pkjc the probability of being killed once 332 M. H. F. Wilkinson captured, and bc and bk the improvements in avoiding capture and being killed, respectively, obtained at the expense of an a increase in detectability. In this case, it can be shown that conspicuousness is favored if ðPd þ aÞ bc Pkjc þ bk Pcjd bc bk > Pcjd Pkjc a ð14Þ Cooper and Vitt (1991) demonstrated the validity of their model with an experiment in which tails of lizards were painted either blue or black. The two groups were faced with scarlet king snakes, and the strikes at various body parts and escapes were counted. When the tail was painted black, the proportion of body strikes was 94.1%, compared to 45.0% in blue-tailed lizards. The total proportion of escapes rose from 23.5% to 60% between black- and blue-tailed lizards. They estimate the parameters of the model as Pcjd ¼ 0:824, Pkjc ¼ 0:929, bc ¼ 0:124, and bk ¼ 0:358 (wild-state values for Pd and a could not be estimated from the experiment). Given these values, inequality (14) means that conspicuousness is selectively favored if Pd > 1:09a. In other words, only if the detection rate approximately doubles due to the conspicuous autotomizable body part will cryptic coloration be favored. Of course, there are many ways in which an organism can avoid such a high increase in detectability. The copious production of mucus from autotomized cerata of the nudibranch Phidiana crassicornis (Miller and Byrne 2000) and prolonged wriggling of autotomized body parts (Dial and Fitzpatrick 1983; Miller and Byrne 2000) may be ways to increase the conspicuousness of the autotomized body part in a way that simultaneously limits the detectability of the prey itself, thereby increasing b without increasing a too much. DECOYS AND EVASION OF THE IMMUNE SYSTEM A variant of the mechanism just given is described by Sibona and Condat (2002) where decoys are produced to counteract the immune response directed against a parasite. Pathogens and parasites have evolved various strategies to avoid the actions of the immune system (e.g., Donelson et al. 1998). Among these strategies is the production of decoys, such as the release of immunodominant fractions of surface proteins into the blood stream in Plasmodium falciparum (Williamson et al. 1996), or surface proteins with extensive repeat regions, which may act as a sink for protective antibodies (Ramasamy 1998). The model discussed by Sibona and Condat refers to Chagas’ disease, caused by Trypanosoma cruzi, which also produces decoys. Limiting the discussion to a single antibody species A, the parasite density X is determined by the following set of differential equations: Decoys in Predation and Parasitism 333 dX ¼ mX aAX dt ð15aÞ dA 1 ¼ gX aAX ðA A0 Þ dt t ð15bÞ in which a is the reaction rate constant for the antibody-parasite reaction, t is the intrinsic lifetime of an antibody molecule, g determines the induced antibody production rate, and A0 is the level of antibody A in the absence of infection. These equations can lead to three outcomes: (1) chronic disease if g > m and aA0 > m (X remains bounded as t ! 1); (2) healing if g > m > aA0 (X ! 1 as t ! 1); and (3) host death if g < m (X goes to infinity as t ! 1). They also note that if the initial inoculum is sufficiently small, a separate case (3b) arises, in which the host survives despite the small induction of antibody production, due to a relatively high aA0 . Sibona and Condat then discuss two different forms of decoy effect: (1) The parasite produces decoys that stimulate antibodies, which do not bind to the actual parasite (similar to the case described by Williamson et al. 1996), and (2) decoys stimulate production of antibodies specific for the parasite itself. The first case is the simplest. Assuming the resources of the immune system are limited, any immune response to the decoys draws resources away from the immune response directed against the parasite itself, so that g is reduced, increasing the risk of death. In the second case an extra differential equation for the decoys D must be introduced, dD ¼ md X ad AD dt ð16aÞ and the equation for antibodies must be changed to dA 1 ¼ gX þ gd D aAX ad AD ðA A0 Þ dt t ð16bÞ in which md is the production rate of decoys, ad is the rate constant for the antibody-decoy reaction, and gd determines the induction of the immune response by decoys. For chronic disease, the steady-state situation becomes m a ð17aÞ md m aA0 t ðg mÞad m þ ðgd a mad Þmd ð17bÞ A¼ D¼ 334 M. H. F. Wilkinson X¼ ad m D a md ð17cÞ They go on to show that the production of decoy is only beneficial to the parasite if m> a g ad d ð18Þ which means that the decoy must not stimulate the antibody production too much, but must be able to neutralize antibodies efficiently. Another interesting point discussed by Sibona and Condat is the appearance of a fourth case in the phase diagram: limit-cycle behavior. Unfortunately, though they do indicate that the existence of this region is determined by ‘‘a highly complex inequality,’’ they do not give the exact boundary. The only examples they give are in a region where inequality (18) does not hold, in which case decoy production is not realistic from an evolutionary point of view. However, it is interesting that in this case decoys are capable of inducing oscillations, rather than damping them. THE ‘‘INVERSE’’ DECOY EFFECT: SIGNALING TOXICITY OR UNPALATABILITY An interesting twist to the decoy effect may be the following. Consider two species X1 and X2 that, unlike in the previous cases, compete for the same resources. Assume that X1 is edible to predator Y, whereas X2 is poisonous or at least unpalatable, which incurs a small cost c. If X1 and X2 are indistinguishable to Y, or at least only distinguishable at short range, X2 will act as a decoy (if present in any numbers) and therefore protect X1 . Assuming logistic growth of X1 and X2 , and Holling Type II kinetics for the predator, we obtain the following differential equations: Vy X1 Y dX1 X þ X2 ¼r 1 1 X1 KX þ Kinh X2 þ X1 dt K ð19aÞ dX2 X1 þ X2 ¼r 1 X2 cX2 dt K ð19bÞ my X1 Y dY ¼ dy Y dt KX þ Kinh X2 þ X1 ð19cÞ Decoys in Predation and Parasitism 335 Clearly, if no predators are present (Y ¼ 0) only X1 will survive, due to the cost term cX2 , which is not balanced by the predation term in (19a), so we will have X1 ¼ K. In general this equilibrium is unstable to invasion by Y. In the absence of X2 , a two-species equilibrium will occur, in which X1 ¼ dy KX =ðmy dy Þ, and Y ¼ Vy1 r½KX þ ð1 KX =KÞX1 X12 =K. When all three species are present, the nontrivial steady-state solution to this set of equations is X1 ¼ KX þ Kinh Kð1 c=rÞ Kinh þ my =dy 1 X2 ¼ Kð1 c=rÞ X1 Y¼ cX1 Vy d y ð20aÞ ð20bÞ ð20cÞ Under the condition that Kð1 c=rÞ > dy KX m y dy ð21Þ that is, the carrying capacity of the ecosystem for X2 is larger than the twospecies equilibrium density for X1 , the three-species equilibrium density of X1 is an increasing function of the inhibition constant Kinh . Suppose that the unpalatable species X2 can signal its unpalatability or toxicity. In that case it can control the extent of the decoy effect by reducing the time spent by the predator on fruitless tracking of individuals of X2 . This reduces Kinh , leading to a decrease of X1 and therefore an increase in X2 . A more thorough study, including stability analysis, of the differential equations (20a,b,c) has yet to be carried out. This idea suggests that warning coloration may not only be useful to an unpalatable or poisonous species to avoid damage caused by (abortive) predator attacks, but also may suppress the decoy effect, which might otherwise benefit a competitor. The secretion of toxins in mucus by the nudibranch Glossodoris pallida may serve such a purpose, especially if the predators have poor eyesight (Avila and Paul 1997). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Decoys occur in many forms, and the connecting theme is (dis)information (Vos et al. 2001). Whenever the predator, parasite, or indeed immune system is misinformed about the exact whereabouts of the prey, host, or pathogen, a decoy effect is present. Seen this way, even the beneficial effect of 336 M. H. F. Wilkinson camouflage may be considered as a variant of the decoy effect. In this case the prey does not physically create decoys, but by mimicking something inedible in its environment that is common, it causes the predator to waste time inspecting nonprey items. It therefore effectively does produce decoys, without the costs involved in autotomy. The molecular mimicry found in several pathogens and parasites, and which is supposed to aid in immune evasion, follows the same pattern (Ramasamy 1998). The decoy effect causes an interaction between information webs and food webs, and thus forms a ‘‘weak link’’ in the food web, which increases stability (McCann 2000). This is supported by a number of observations. One example is that chemotaxis toward the host was found to reduce the decoy effect (Chipev 1993). The extra information obtained from chemoattractants secreted by their hosts in part canceled the decoy effect caused by non-host snails. This is given further support even in the earlier work of Christensen et al. (1976), in which it was found that related (Lymnaea) species produced a far more pronounced decoy effect than did a number of less related species. They also showed that the F. hepatica miracidia were attracted to L. pereger, a non-host Lymnaea. Though the word ‘‘decoy’’ might be thought of as implying attraction of the predator or parasite species, this need not be the case. In the case of B. bacteriovorus described in Wilkinson (2001), the presence of the decoy species simply leads to collisions with the predator, which is assumed to move through the medium randomly. This is drastically different from the case described by Vos et al. (2001), the F. hepatica–L. trunculata system of Christensen et al. (1976), or the immune-evasion strategies of various pathogens (Williamson et al. 1996; Ramasamy 1998; Sibona and Condat 2002). In these latter cases the information carried by the chemoattractants is misleading, whereas in the former case the information is simply absent. Both situations lead to the occurrence of a decoy effect, stabilizing the ecosystem. A recurring problem is that of parameter estimation and model validation. Though many studies do indeed provide estimates of parameters, and model calculations with the estimated parameters are conducted, they are subsequently not compared to actual ecosystems (e.g., Dial and Fitzpatrick 1983; Cooper and Vitt 1991; Vos et al. 2001), usually due to the complexity of carrying out such an experiment at the appropriate scale. In this respect, the experiment using the bacterial model proposed in Wilkinson (2001) is interesting, because of the small size of the organisms involved, combined with a high reproductive rate. To the best of my knowledge, this experiment has still not been carried out. Finally, the word ‘‘decoy’’ seems to imply deception, and this is a bit unfortunate, because it may lead to semantic confusion, in the same way that the phrase ‘‘evolutionary stable strategy’’ can be misinterpreted as suggesting conscious decision making. No deception, and certainly no intentional deception, is present in the cases discussed in Christensen et al. (1976), Vos et al. (2001), and Wilkinson (2001). The decoy species may Decoys in Predation and Parasitism 337 not benefit at all from its decoy status. Indeed, if decoy and prey species are competitors, the decoy species may suffer as a consequence, as shown in Eq. (20b). In that case ‘‘honesty,’’ that is, signaling the inedible status to the predator, may increase the probability of survival. This too shows how important it is to evaluate the interplay between information and food webs to fully understand ecosystems of even the most modest complexity. REFERENCES Arnold, E. N. 1988. Caudal autotomy as a defense. In Biology of the Reptilia, vol. 16, eds. C. Gans and R. B. Huey, pp. 235–274, New York: A.R. Liss. Avila, C., and V. J. Paul. 1997. Chemical ecology of the nudibranch Glossodoris pallida: Is the location of diet-derived metabolites important for defense? Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 150:171–180. Brueseke, M. A., A. L. Rypstra, S. E. Walker, and M. H. Persons. 2001. Leg autotomy in the wolf spider Pardosa milvina: Common phenomenon with few apparent costs. Am. Midland Nat. 146:153–160. Canale, R. P. 1969. Predator–prey relationships in a model for the activated sludge process. Biotech. Bioeng. XI:887–907. Chipev, N. H. 1993. Decoy effect and host infection by miracidia within snail communities. Parasitology 106:265–276. Christensen, N. O., P. Nansen, and F. Frandsen. 1976. Molluscs interfering with the capacity of Fasciola hepatica miracidia to infect Lymnaea trunculata. Parasitology 73:161–167. Cooper, W. E., Jr., and L. J. Vitt. 1991. Influence of detectability and ability to escape on natural selection of conspicuous autotomous defenses. Can. J. Zool. 69:757–764. DeAngelis, D.L. 1992. Dynamics of nutrient cycling and food webs, pp. 81–87, London: Chapman & Hall. Dial, B. E., and L. C. Fitzpatrick. 1983. Lizard tail autotomy: Function and energetics of postautotomy tail movement in Scincella lateralis. Science 219:391–393. Donelson, J. E., L. H. Hill, and N. M. A. El-Sayed. 1998. Multiple mechanisms of immune evasion by African trypanosomes. Mol. Biochem. Parasitol. 91:51–66. Downes, S., and R. Shine. 2001. Why does tail loss increase a lizard’s later vulnerability to snake predators. Ecology 82:1293–1303. Drutz, D. J. 1976. Response of Neisseria gonorrhoea to Bdellovibrio species. Infect. Immun. 13:247–251. Fratamico, P. M., and R. C. Whiting. 1995. Ability of Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus 109J to lyse gram-negative food-borne pathogenic and spoilage bacteria. J. Food Protect. 58:160–164. Guffey, C. 1998. Leg autotomy and its potential fitness cost for two species of harvestmen (Arachninida, Opiliones). J. Arachnol. 26:296–302. Harmon, J. P., A. R. Ives, J. E. Losey, A. C. Olson, and K. S. Rauwald. 2000. Coleomegilla maculata (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) predation on pea aphids promoted by proximity to dandelions. Oecologia 125:543–548. Harris, R. N. 1989. Nonlethal injury to organisms as a mechanism of population regulation. Am. Nat. 134:835–847. Jackson, L., and R. C. Whiting. 1992. Reduction of an Escherichia coli K12 population by Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus under various in vitro conditions of parasite:host ratio, temperature, or pH. J. Food Protect. 55:859–861. Kooi, B. W., and S. A. L. M. Kooijman. 1994. Existence and stability of microbial prey-predator systems. J. Theor. Biol. 170:75–85. 338 M. H. F. Wilkinson Mallory, L. M., C. S. Yuk, L. N. Liang, and M. Alexander. 1983. Alternative prey: A mechanism for elimination of bacterial species by protozoa. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 46:1073–1079. McCann, K. S. 2000. The diversity stability debate. Nature 405:228–233. Miller, J. A., and M. Byrne. 2000. Ceratal autotomy and regeneration in the aeolid nudibranch Phidiana crassicornis and the role of predators. Invertebrate Biol. 119:167–176. Nisbet, R. M., A. Cunningham, and W. S. C. Gurney. 1983. Endogenous metabolism and the stability of microbial prey-predator systems. Biotechnol. Bioeng. XXV:301–306. Nuechterlein, G. L. 1981. ‘‘Information parasitism’’ in mixed colonies of western grebes and Forster’s terns. Anim. Behav. 29:985–989. Pels, B., and M. W. Sabelis. 2000. Do herbivore-induced plant volatiles influence predator migration and local dynamics of herbivorous and predatory mites. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 24:427–440. Pius, S. M., and P. L. Leberg. 1998. The protector species hypothesis: Do black skimmers find refuge from predators in gull-billed tern colonies? Ethology 104:273–284. Punzo, F. 1997. Leg autotomy and avoidance behavior in response to a predator in the wolf spider, Schizocosa avida (Aranae, Lycosidae). J. Arachnol. 25:202–205. Ramasamy, R. 1998. Molecular basis for evasion of host immunity and pathogenesis in malaria. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1406:10–27. Sarkar, B. L., A. K. Chakrabarti, H. Koley, M. K. Chakrabarti, and S. P. De. 1996. Biological activity and interaction of Vibrio cholerae bacteriophages in rabbit ileal loop. Indian J. Med. Res. 104:139–141. Sibona, G. J., and C. A. Condat. 2002. Dynamic analysis of a parasite population model. Phys. Rev. E. 65:031918 1–9. Smith, H. W., and M. B. Huggins. 1983. Effectiveness of phages in treating experimental Escherichia coli diarrhoea in calves piglets and lambs. J. Gen. Microbiol. 129:2659–2675. Snyder, W. E., and A. R. Ives. 2001. Generalist predators disrupt biological control by a specialist predator. Ecology 82:705–716. Straley, S. C., and S. F. Conti. 1977. Chemotaxis by Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus toward prey. J. Bacteriol. 132:628–640. Vos, M., S. Moreno-Berrocal, F. Karamaouna, L. Hemerik, and L. E. M. Vet. 2001. Plantmediated indirect effects and the persistence of parasitoid-herbivore communities. Ecol. Lett. 4:38–45. Westergaard, J. M., and T. T. Kramer. 1977. Bdellovibrio and the intestinal flora of vertebrates. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 34:506–511. Wilkinson, M. H. F. 2001. Predation in the presence of decoys: An inhibitory factor on pathogen control by bacteriophages or bdellovibrios in dense and diverse ecosystems. J. Theor. Biol. 208:27–36. Williamson, K. C., H. Fujioka, M. Aikawa, and D. C. Kaslow. 1996. Stage-specific processing of Pfs230, a Plasmodium falciparum transmission-blocking vaccine candidate. Mol. Biochem. Parasitol. 78:161–169. Wilson, B. S. 1992. Tail injuries increase the risk of mortality in free-living lizards (Uta stansburiana). Oecologia 92:145–152. Yousif, F., M. el-Emam, and K. el-Sayed. 1998. Effect of six non-target snails on Schistosoma mansoni miracidial host finding and infection of Biomphalaria alexandrina under laboratory conditions. J. Egypt. Soc. Parasitol. 28:559–568.