Back

Priority effects drive fungal and nematode emergence from insect larvae

Payelleville, A.; Warren, M.; Golde, C.; Sasai, D.; Pan, B.; Cleary, P. J.; Gomez, A.; Shrestha, R.; Ogier, J.-C.; Gaudriault, S.; Jacobs-Wagner, C.; Fukami, T.

2025-11-14 ecology
10.1101/2025.11.14.688296 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Priority effects, in which species arrival history influences community assembly, are increasingly recognized to affect host-parasite systems. However, priority effects across disparate groups of parasitic organisms are poorly understood despite the wide range of taxonomic groups involved. In California oak woodland, we investigated how priority effects between two insect-parasitic fungi (Metarhizium and Beauveria) influenced emergence of nematodes from insect larvae. Field and laboratory results indicated that both fungi were common, but priority effects prevented them from co-emerging from the same larva. Metarhizium- and Beauveria-infected insects did not differ in the species composition of emerging nematodes, but larvae without fungal emergence had distinct nematode communities, with Oscheius almost always emerging without fungi. Experiments indicated that none of the commonly found nematodes (Acrobeloides, Mesorhabditis, Oscheius, and Rhabditis) were entomopathogenic, but that Oscheius could exclude Beauveria if arrived early. This time-dependent exclusion was likely caused by an Ochrobactrum bacterium that Oscheius nematodes carried. Together, these findings suggest that fungi enter insects as primary arrivers, while nematodes come as secondary arrivers to exploit fungus-killed insects, with priority effects influencing both groups. We suggest that this system is a promising natural microcosm for understanding priority effects across disparate groups in host-parasite systems.

Published in FEMS Microbiology Ecology (predicted rank #4) · training set

Matching journals

The top 12 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.