The effect of host social system on parasite population genetic structure: comparative population genetics of two ectoparasitic mites and their bat hosts

Table 1 Key differences in social system of the two host species

	Greater mouse-eared bat	Bechstein’s bat	Predicted effect on parasite population genetic structure	Reference
	Myotis myotis	Myotis bechsteinii
Social organization
Colony size	Large (50–2000)	Small (10–50)	Larger colonies lead to less genetic drift	[17]
Female natal philopatry	High; but occasional exchange of individuals between colonies	Very high; almost no exchange of individuals between colonies	Lower philopatry leads to more parasite transmission	[31, 53]
Roost fidelity	High; one site (building/cave) throughout summer	Very low; frequent roost switching (tree cavities) and fission-fusion dynamics	Fission-fusion dynamics may increase genetic drift because colonies split into subgroups	[17, 54]
Hibernation	Free-hanging; solitary or clustered	In crevices (mostly solitary)	Solitary roosting reduces parasite transmission	[17]
Mating system	Temporary harems (extensive contact) and/or swarming (little contact)	Swarming (little contact)	Temporary harems increase parasite transmission	[14, 16]

Overview of the key differences in social system between the greater mouse-eared bat (Myotis myotis) and Bechstein’s bat (Myotis bechsteinii), and the expected effects thereof on the population genetic structure of their parasites.

ISSN: 2730-7182