Abstract
The gut microbiota of animals displays a high degree of plasticity with respect to environmental or dietary adaptations and is shaped by factors like social interactions, diet diversity or the local environment. But the contribution of these drivers varies across host taxa and our ability to explain microbiome variability within wild populations remains limited. Terrestrial animals have divergent mobility ranges and can either crawl, walk or fly, from a couple of centimeters toward thousands of kilometers. Animal movement has been little regarded in host microbiota frameworks, though it can directly influence major drivers of the host microbiota: (1) Aggregation movement can enhance social transmissions, (2) foraging movement can extend range of diet diversity, and (3) dispersal movement determines the local environment of a host. Here, I would like to outline how movement behaviors of different host taxa matter for microbial acquisition across mammals, birds as well as insects. Host movement can have contrasting effects and either reduce or enlarge spatial scale. Increased dispersal movement could dissolve local effects of sampling location, while aggregation could enhance inter-host transmissions and uniformity among social groups. Host movement can also extend the boundaries of microbial dispersal limitations and connect habitat patches across plant-pollinator networks, while the microbiota of wild populations could converge toward a uniform pattern when mobility is interrupted in captivity or laboratory settings. Hence, the implementation of host movement would be a valuable addition to the metacommunity concept, to comprehend microbial dispersal within and across trophic levels.
Introduction
Microbial associations with animal hosts are ubiquitous and increasingly recognized as important factor for the understanding of host ecology and evolution (Shapira, 2016; Foster et al., 2017; Kolodny et al., 2020; Moeller and Sanders, 2020). The gut microbiota of host animals provides various important roles regarding digestion, provision or nutrients or immune stimulating function within insects as well as vertebrate clades (Moran et al., 2019; Schmidt and Engel, 2021). There is a huge interest in advancing our understanding on how host-associations are formed and how much inter-host transmission, environmental acquisition or host genetic factors play a role (Robinson et al., 2019; Mallott and Amato, 2021). While major focus is clearly on functional aspects for the host, reliable transmission routes and acquisition fidelity would sustain microbial associations even in the absence of mutualistic interactions (Leftwich et al., 2020; Sieber et al., 2021). For successful colonization and establishment as resident gut member, microbes must first encounter the host, which is increasingly more likely when one or both of the partners is mobile (Obeng et al., 2021). While microbial motility can be essential for the establishment of symbioses in aquatic and marine environments (Raina et al., 2019), terrestrial animals could directly alter the probability of encountering microbes by relocating themself. Host mobility range and frequency of movements differ across animal taxa, from highly mobile to more resident species.
Various studies applied a metacommunity concept for an eco-evolutionary understanding of host microbiome associations, including environmental microbes as a regional species pool (Adair and Douglas, 2017; Carrier and Reitzel, 2017; Miller et al., 2018). Host movement can extend these theoretical applications from a static toward a more dynamic acquisition process (Mihaljevic, 2012). Host aggregations reduces spatial scale and directly influence probability of inter-host transmissions, while host foraging movements could extend microbial acquisition range or increase microbial dispersal across different habitats.
While insects have (beside vertically transmitted obligate endosymbionts) relatively simple and species poor gut microbiotas (Colman et al., 2012; Engel and Moran, 2013; Jones et al., 2013), most mammals are known for a highly diverse and host taxon specific gut microbiota, that often fits to the phylogenetic distance of the host (the so called “phylosymbiosis” pattern) (Groussin et al., 2017; Groussin et al., 2020; Kohl, 2020). Though this is believed to be the result of an adaptive evolution of mammalian clades for dietary specialization, such a framework does not fit well to the microbiota of birds or bats, which show high inter individual dissimilarity and little influence of host phylogeny (Davenport et al., 2017; Lutz et al., 2019; Song et al., 2020).
With this manuscript I would like to highlight the role of host “movement” and mobility range as a neglected parameter explaining patterns in the microbiota of mammals, birds and insects and the potential transfer across host taxa.
How Host Movement Increases Microbial Dispersal
By moving from one into another place animal hosts can vector microbes over a broad distance and increase their geographic distribution and dispersal rates. At the same time, a host can acquire different microbes from the new location, so that both effects of microbial acquisition and dispersal are often combined and hard to disentangle (Figure 1A). The vinegar fly Drosophila melanogaster is highly attracted by microbial volatiles and use this to find suitable oviposition sites within decaying and rotting fruits (Becher et al., 2012; Markow, 2015; Qiao et al., 2019). The highly mobile adults can disperse and vector microbes that accelerate the decaying process and support the development of the low-mobile larvae, which is a substantial aspect in the ecology of drosophilid and tephritid fruit flies (Wertheim et al., 2005; Wong et al., 2015; Pais et al., 2018). Under axenic conditions, adult flies respond with a restless behavior and increased locomotion activity (Schretter et al., 2018).
FIGURE 1
In pollination ecology, the high mobility and movement range of flying insects is a key factor to understand the dispersal abilities of the floral microbiota (Vannette and Fukami, 2017; Morris et al., 2019; Vannette, 2020). Pollinator foraging include repeated visitations of flowers by several different insects species, so that flowers can serve as hubs for microbial exchange within plant pollinator networks (Francis et al., 2021; Keller et al., 2021; Zemenick et al., 2021). Microbes can even directly influence pollinator behavior and preferences, altering floral visitation and nectar removal rates (Schaeffer et al., 2017; Rering et al., 2020; Jacquemyn et al., 2021). Similar, the distribution of multiple pollinator species drives parasite prevalence dynamics over the course of a season (Graystock et al., 2020). Like the common drone fly (Eristalis tenax), which promotes the dispersal of a hymenopteran gut parasite by contaminations of flower tissue with copious defecations (Figueroa et al., 2019; Davis et al., 2021).
How Host Movement Shapes the Host Microbiota
A mobile host is not only a spreader, but also a receiver of microbes. Host animals can occupy various environmental niches, so that they can be associated with a diverse set of microbes (Carrier and Reitzel, 2017). The ecology and behavior of the host is an important aspect for host-microbial associations and their movement range would influence probabilities for microbial acquisition from different habitats or during social interaction (Ezenwa et al., 2012; Archie and Tung, 2015; Miller et al., 2018). Animals perform different kinds of movements, like non-directional “station-keeping movements” when foraging for food in a restricted area, or “dispersal movement” and “nomadism” as an erratic translocation across different habitats, until “migration” as a highly directional long-distance form of movement (Schlägel et al., 2020). All these movement behaviors could be drivers of the host microbiota, as they allow “social” interactions of a host with conspecifics, influence foraging range and “diet” diversity and determine if a host stays within a single “local” environment or frequently moves across diverse habitats (Figure 1B). Predictions for the outcome could be divergent and case specific, as host mobility could enhance similarities among social group structures within geographic isolated populations. While for other hosts, a high dispersal rate and foraging range could blur local influences and result in high dissimilarities among individuals from a single habitat. Thus, the application of a unified framework for all animal hosts would be challenging, as the influence of stochastic and deterministic factors change with the ecological context of the host and its mobility range (Sieber et al., 2019; Mallott and Amato, 2021).
How Host Movement Defines the Microbial Acquisition Range
Animals with limited movement abilities depend largely on the regional pool of microbes in their vicinity, which could enhance the correlation of host microbiota with sampling location (Figure 2A, pale yellow). This category includes mainly very small animals or insect larvae. A prominent member would be probably Caenorhabditis elegans, which is literally dwelling in microbial rich habitats as it can be found in nature on decomposing plant material and rotting fruits (Frézal and Félix, 2015). C. elegans is mainly relocated by vectoring animals and its gut microbiota composition is largely determined by the local substrate conditions, which can be distinct from that under laboratory conditions (Zhang et al., 2017). Even larger insect larvae (i.e., caterpillars) are mainly influenced by the foliar microbiota of their local environment, when remaining on a single host plant. Caterpillars are not known to depend on microbial associations nor enrichment of host-specific microbiota and interindividual variability can be explained by different host plants or collection sites (Hammer et al., 2019; Jones et al., 2019; Mason et al., 2020).
FIGURE 2
The second category contains animals that can perform terrestrial locomotion or “walking” (Figure 2A, yellow). This includes most mammals (including humans), flightless birds or ground-dwelling insects. Such movement abilities increase the mobility range and enable selective foraging for host-specific diets or allows social interactions, which would both increase microbiota similarity among conspecifics. In the wood mouse (Apodemus sylvaticus), the tracking of individual movement patterns revealed, that social connectivity and encounters with conspecifics explains microbiota similarity better than spatial distances or genetic relatedness (Raulo et al., 2021). In humans and primates, social group structures or “co-housing” within a shared living environment have a stronger influence on microbiome similarity among individuals than host-genetic factors or kinship (Tung et al., 2015; Rothschild et al., 2018; Brito et al., 2019; Robinson et al., 2019). Over larger geographic distances dispersal limitations and prey preferences explain gut microbiota dissimilarities among carnivorous mammals in allopatric populations (Moeller et al., 2017). While at a smaller geographic distance (< 25 km), the microbiota of wild mammals does not cluster by location, but mainly by host species identity and dietary preference (Knowles et al., 2019). Movement allows a selective foraging for specific diets within the same habitat, so that herbivorous rodents (mice and voles) are dominated by Bacteroidetes and Firmicutes, while their sympatric insectivorous neighbors (shrews) show increased abundances of Proteobacteria (Knowles et al., 2019).
The third movement category includes all “flying” animals (Figure 2A, orange), which contains most birds, bats as well as several flying insects. Active flight enlarges the range for microbial acquisition further and might dissolve signatures of local habitat boundaries. Characteristic for birds and bats is the low correlation of their microbiota with host phylogeny and a minor influences of sampling locality or habitat type (Hird et al., 2015; Lutz et al., 2019; San Juan et al., 2020; Bodawatta et al., 2021). Studies that have combined individual flight behavior of birds with host microbiota analysis are extremely rare, but for the barn owl (Tyto alba) the medium foraging range indicated a positive correlation with microbial diversity (Corl et al., 2020). Also insects showed typically high dissimilarities among individuals, low biogeographic patterns and only a weak influence of host phylogeny (Colman et al., 2012; Jones et al., 2013; Yun et al., 2014; Bahrndorff et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2020). But flying insects do not necessarily cover larger absolute geographic distances than terrestrial animals, but mobility per se with a high frequency of movements within a smaller range could expose a host to heterogeneous microenvironments. This is particularly important for microbe–plant–pollinator interactions, since the dispersal of nectar microbes is directly linked to the foraging behavior of pollinators (Cullen et al., 2021; Francis et al., 2021). Wild bee species vary in their foraging ranges from a few hundred meters to several kilometers, while nocturnal moth can easily exceed movement ranges to several hundred kilometers (Greenleaf et al., 2007; Satterfield et al., 2020).
The fourth movement category (Figure 2A, red) includes species that “migrate,” which differs from the previous movement categories, as it is a seasonal directional movement over larger geographic distance. Migration has been primarily investigated in birds and butterflies regarding the long-distance dispersal of parasites or as a strategy to avoid pathogen infections (Altizer et al., 2011; Bartel et al., 2011; Boulinier et al., 2016; Viana et al., 2016). But a few studies have investigated if host migration influences gut microbial diversity. While migrating passerine birds showed a change of their microbiota following a dietary shift (Lewis et al., 2017; Skeen et al., 2021), other studies pointed mainly at physiological adaptations and little environmental acquisition of microbes (Risely et al., 2017, 2018; Wu et al., 2018; Turjeman et al., 2020). The influence of migration on the microbiota of birds seems rather marginal and could be mainly attributed to dietary shifts between geographic distant locations. With insects, the influence of migration is less clear. Though, insect migration is often associated with the spectacular mass migration events of the monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) or the painted lady (Vanessa cardui), migration abilities are not uncommon for other butterflies or nocturnal moth, but remain often unnoticed as they fly in lower numbers or at night (Chowdhury et al., 2021). But even seasonal mass migration events are easily overlooked, when insects are small and fly at high altitudes like the marmalade hoverfly (Episyrphus balteatus) (Hu et al., 2016; Wotton et al., 2019; Satterfield et al., 2020). But to what extent insect migration would influence microbiota acquisition or dispersal has not been fully elucidated yet.
Does ‘Flight’ or the Consumption of Mobile Insect Prey Shape the Host Microbiota?
A recent comparative study concludes that a convergent physiological adaption to “flight” (reduced dependence on microbes to reduce weight of the digestive system) shapes the bird as well as the bat microbiota (Song et al., 2020). Particular Proteobacteria seem somehow associated with “flight,” as they are commonly found in birds, bats and insects, while most mammals are dominated by Bacteroidetes and Firmicutes (Brooks et al., 2016; Song et al., 2020). But there are notable exceptions. In the analysis of Song et al. (2020) the order of Insectivora (here mainly shrews of the genus Crocidura spp.) showed the second highest proportions of Proteobacteria and a less mammal-specific microbiota than Chiroptera (bats), directly followed by Pholidota (ant-eating Pangolins). If the observed pattern would be explained by a physiological adaptation to flight, this raises the question why terrestrial shrews have the most “bird-like” microbiota of all mammals.
What is intriguing about this observation is the possibility that insectivorous mammals might obtain their microbiota directly from their prey. In such a scenario, the consumption of insects would expand their microbial acquisition range, which resembles more that of a flying insect (Figure 2B). A transfer of microbes across predator-prey networks has been suggested for insectivorous birds and predatory insects (Tiede et al., 2017; Suenami et al., 2019; Dion-Phénix et al., 2021). The mammalian microbiota is strongly influenced by species identity and type of diet, but an increase of invertebrate prey (i.e., insects) within the diet correlates with a decrease in bacterial alpha diversity compared to mammals with a primarily herbivorous lifestyle (Knowles et al., 2019; Harrison et al., 2021). Tough “insectivory” includes the consumption of non-flying insects (i.e., ants or termites) as well as other invertebrates, such a dietary preference seems to result in a convergent adaptation in the microbiota of phylogenetically distant mammalian clades (Pilosa, Cingulata, Tubulidentata, and Carnivora) (Delsuc et al., 2014). Particular bats might be able to further expand their microbial acquisition range beyond their own flight range, as they consume a diverse variety of highly mobile insect species within the orders Lepidoptera, Diptera, and Coleoptera (Tiede et al., 2020). The Brazilian free-tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis) preys on high altitude flying insects, which includes several migrating species, and noctuid moth make on average 77% of their diet (Krauel et al., 2018). There is clearly more work needed to clarify to what extend the microbiota of insects influences the microbiota of insectivorous animals across tropic levels (Figure 2B), and what patterns would be predicted for the microbiota of highly mobile hosts.
Interruption of Host Movement Behavior in Captivity or Laboratory Settings
Captivity and laboratory settings can alter the outcome of microbiome studies tremendously and should be taken with caution when implying evolutionary context (Hird, 2017). As long as the insectivorous bat Mops condylurus preys on flying insects, they show higher interindividual variability with relative low alpha diversity in their fecal microbiota, but converge toward a more uniform community composition with increased alpha diversity when kept in captivity for 6 weeks (Edenborough et al., 2020). When brought into captivity, primates tend to shift toward a more “human-like” microbiota (Nishida and Ochman, 2021), which was attributed to a reduced diversity of food plants with lower fiber content compared to the naturally foraged diet of wild relatives (Clayton et al., 2016). Captivity has a significant effect on the microbiota of several mammal species (Kohl et al., 2014; McKenzie et al., 2017), and there is a lot potential to further explore how restrictions in foraging movement and range size shape the microbiome. Captivity alters also the microbiota of migratory as well as terrestrial birds, such as the crane and the brown kiwi (Xie et al., 2016; San Juan et al., 2021). Any restriction of animal movement behavior could disrupt natural host-microbial dispersal routes leading to more “uniform” results that confound the outcome obtained in laboratory settings or under captivity conditions.
Conclusion and Future Perspectives
A major challenge in the investigation of the microbiota of wild animals is the lack of a clear framework of what can be expected when host species identity or geographic location are failing short to predict the observed variability within wild populations. By an integration of flight behavior, the study by Song et al. (2020) marks a transition that elevates from a pure host phylogenetic perspective toward the integration of host ecology. There is an exciting potential for future research to combine hypothesis about animal behavior and movement decisions with the host microbiota (Davidson et al., 2020; Bo and Kohl, 2021).
In the past, the analysis of host microbiomes has been mainly performed from a “host-centric” viewpoint, following the tradition of genetic model systems in the search of a host-genetic basis that explains microbiome composition. The inclusion of the “microbes perspective” has challenged this view and brings community ecological principles and stochastic processes into host microbiota analysis (Obeng et al., 2021; Sieber et al., 2021). The host microbiota is not a constant trait, but shows context dependent plasticity and interindividual variability in time and space (Carrier and Reitzel, 2017). Especially the metacommunity concept has become very useful in describing host-associated microbiota as it provides a framework that integrates interhost transmission and environmental acquisition of microbes from an external pool (Miller et al., 2018). As a reference to island biogeography, hosts are often depicted as passive “microbial habitats” that become colonized by microbes, similar as islands become colonized by other macrobiota, while social connectivity is illustrated by clustering single host “islands” into “archipelagoes” as used in the analogy by Sarkar et al. (2020). Though this mainly refers to stable social group structures, it misses to depict the dynamic and transient nature of these interactions. Moving hosts would be more comparable to “floating islands” which constantly change their spatial distribution relative to each other, actively connect in social interactions or relocate themselves into different environments (Figure 3).
FIGURE 3
Similar as microbial movement (motility) turned out to be an important aspect of host microbiota associations within aquatic systems (Raina et al., 2019), host movement (mobility) could become a vital addition to the metacommunity concept explaining the acquisition and dispersal of microbes among terrestrial animals. Movement changes several parameters that influence microbiome composition and could strength similarities among conspecifics via selective foraging or social exchange (Figure 3). Social transmission would become merely a consequence of aggregation movement, which decreases spatial scale and enhances the probability of microbial transmission among conspecifics. But movement could also blur correlations with host phylogeny and lead to higher dissimilarity among conspecifics from the same location. The mobility range and foraging pattern of a host could be a key factor to fully comprehend the composition and diversity of the host microbiota. Though a direct tracking of host movement in the wild is indeed a challenge, the outstanding work by Raulo et al. (2021) and Skeen et al. (2021) demonstrates the value of repeated sampling and the integration of movement patterns as a new dimension into microbiota analysis of birds and mammals. But even for insects, where a direct tracking of individuals is less feasible, the investigation of transmission routes within plant pollinator networks becomes a promising step to better understand microbial dispersal among different host taxa and across the animal and plant kingdom (Keller et al., 2021; Zemenick et al., 2021). Still, a framework for predictions of microbiota composition of highly mobile flying hosts is missing, as increasing complexity of interactions makes it difficult to directly correlate host mobility range with gut microbial diversity. Here, more work is needed to further explore if the same drivers can explain microbiota composition of flying hosts, resolving the patterns observed from insects, birds and bats.
Publisher’s Note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Statements
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.
Author contributions
AW conceived, designed, and wrote the manuscript.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank the reviewer and the editor for their constructive comments and all authors and scientists that dedicated their work on PhyloPic to the public domain.
Conflict of interest
The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
References
1
AdairK. L.DouglasA. E. (2017). Making a microbiome: the many determinants of host-associated microbial community composition.Curr. Opin. Microbiol.3523–29. 10.1016/j.mib.2016.11.002
2
AltizerS.BartelR.HanB. A. (2011). Animal migration and infectious disease risk.Science331296–302. 10.1126/science.1194694
3
ArchieE. A.TungJ. (2015). Social behavior and the microbiome.Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci.628–34. 10.1016/j.cobeha.2015.07.008
4
BahrndorffS.JongeN.De, SkovgårdH.NielsenJ. L. (2017). Bacterial communities associated with houseflies (Musca domestica L.) sampled within and between farms.PLoS One12:e0169753. 10.1371/journal.pone.0169753
5
BartelR. A.OberhauserK. S.RoodeJ. C.DeAltizerS. M. (2011). Monarch butterfly migration and parasite transmission in eastern North America.Ecology92342–351. 10.1890/10-0489.1
6
BecherP. G.FlickG.RozpedowskaE.SchmidtA.HagmanA. (2012). Yeast, not fruit volatiles mediate Drosophila melanogaster attraction, oviposition and development.Funct. Ecol.26822–828. 10.1111/j.1365-2435.2012.02006.x
7
BoT.KohlK. D. (2021). Stabilization and optimization of host-microbe-environment interactions as a potential reason for the behavior of natal philopatry.Anim. Microbiome.3:26. 10.1186/s42523-021-00087-3
8
BodawattaK. H.HirdS. M.GrondK.PoulsenM.JønssonK. A. (2021). Avian gut microbiomes taking flight.Trends Microbiol. [Epub online ahead of print] 10.1016/j.tim.2021.07.003
9
BoulinierT.KadaS.PonchonA.DuprazM.DietrichM.GambleA.et al (2016). Migration, Prospecting, Dispersal? What Host Movement Matters for Infectious Agent Circulation?Integr. Comp. Biol.56330–342. 10.1093/icb/icw015
10
BritoI. L.GurryT.ZhaoS.HuangK.YoungS. K.SheaT. P.et al (2019). Transmission of human-associated microbiota along family and social networks.Nat. Microbiol.4964–971. 10.1038/s41564-019-0409-6
11
BrooksA. W.KohlK. D.BruckerR. M.OpstalE. J.vanBordensteinS. R. (2016). Phylosymbiosis: relationships and Functional Effects of Microbial Communities across Host Evolutionary History.PLoS Biol.14:e2000225. 10.1371/journal.pbio.2000225
12
CarrierT. J.ReitzelA. M. (2017). The hologenome across environments and the implications of a host-associated microbial repertoire.Front. Microbiol.8:802. 10.3389/fmicb.2017.00802
13
ChowdhuryS.FullerR. A.DingleH.ChapmanJ. W.ZaluckiM. P. (2021). Migration in butterflies: a global overview.Biol. Rev.961462–1483. 10.1111/brv.12714
14
ClaytonJ. B.VangayP.HuangH. (2016). Captivity humanizes the primate microbiome.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.11310376–10381. 10.1073/pnas.1521835113
15
ColmanD. R.ToolsonE. C.Takacs-VesbachC. D. (2012). Do diet and taxonomy influence insect gut bacterial communities?Mol. Ecol.215124–5137. 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2012.05752.x
16
CorlA.CharterM.RozmanG.ToledoS.TurjemanS.KamathP. L.et al (2020). Movement ecology and sex are linked to barn owl microbial community composition.Mol. Ecol.291358–1371. 10.1111/mec.15398
17
CullenN. P.FettersA. M.AshmanT. L. (2021). Integrating microbes into pollination.Curr. Opin. Insect Sci.4448–54. 10.1016/j.cois.2020.11.002
18
DavenportE. R.SandersJ. G.SongS. J.AmatoK. R.ClarkA. G.KnightR. (2017). The human microbiome in evolution.BMC Biol.15:127. 10.1186/s12915-017-0454-7
19
DavidsonG. L.RauloA.KnowlesS. C. L. (2020). Identifying Microbiome-Mediated Behaviour in Wild Vertebrates.Trends Ecol. Evol.35972–980. 10.1016/j.tree.2020.06.014
20
DavisA. E.DeutschK. R.TorresA. M. (2021). Eristalis flower flies can be mechanical vectors of the common trypanosome bee parasite.Crithidia Bombi. Sci. Rep.11:15852. 10.1038/s41598-021-95323-w
21
DelsucF.MetcalfJ. L.Wegener ParfreyL.SongS. J.GonzálezA.KnightR. (2014). Convergence of gut microbiomes in myrmecophagous mammals.Mol. Ecol.231301–1317. 10.1111/mec.12501
22
Dion-PhénixH.CharmantierA.FranceschiC.de, BourretG.KembelS. W.et al (2021). Bacterial microbiota similarity between predators and prey in a blue tit trophic network.ISME J.151098–1107. 10.1038/s41396-020-00836-3
23
EdenboroughK. M.MuA.MühldorferK.LechnerJ.LanderA.BokelmannM.et al (2020). Microbiomes in the insectivorous bat species Mops condylurus rapidly converge in captivity.PLoS One15:e0223629. 10.1371/journal.pone.0223629
24
EngelP.MoranN. A. (2013). The gut microbiota of insects – diversity in structure and function.FEMS Microbiol. Rev.37699–735. 10.1111/1574-6976.12025
25
EzenwaV. O.GerardoN. M.InouyeD. W.MedinaM.XavierJ. B. (2012). Animal behavior and the microbiome.Science338198–199. 10.1126/science.1227412
26
FigueroaL. L.BlinderM.GrincavitchC. (2019). Bee pathogen transmission dynamics: deposition, persistence and acquisition on flowers.Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci.286:20190603. 10.1098/rspb.2019.0603
27
FosterK. R.SchluterJ.CoyteK. Z.Rakoff-NahoumS. (2017). The evolution of the host microbiome as an ecosystem on a leash.Nature54843–51. 10.1038/nature23292
28
FrancisJ. S.TatarkoA. R.RichmanS. K.VaudoA. D.LeonardA. S. (2021). Microbes and pollinator behavior in the floral marketplace.Curr. Opin. Insect Sci.4416–22. 10.1016/j.cois.2020.10.003
29
FrézalL.FélixM. A. (2015). C. elegans outside the Petri dish.Elife4:e05849. 10.7554/eLife.05849
30
GraystockP.NgW. H.ParksK.TripodiA. D.MuñizP. A.FerschA. A.et al (2020). Dominant bee species and floral abundance drive parasite temporal dynamics in plant-pollinator communities.Nat. Ecol. Evol.41358–1367. 10.1038/s41559-020-1247-x
31
GreenleafS. S.WilliamsN. M.WinfreeR.KremenC. (2007). Bee foraging ranges and their relationship to body size.Oecologia153589–596. 10.1007/s00442-007-0752-9
32
GroussinM.MazelF.AlmE. J. (2020). Co-evolution and Co-speciation of Host-Gut Bacteria Systems.Cell Host Microbe2812–22. 10.1016/j.chom.2020.06.013
33
GroussinM.MazelF.SandersJ. G.SmillieC. S.LavergneS.ThuillerW.et al (2017). Unraveling the processes shaping mammalian gut microbiomes over evolutionary time.Nat. Commun.8:14319. 10.1038/ncomms14319
34
HammerT. J.SandersJ. G.FiererN. (2019). Not all animals need a microbiome.FEMS Microbiol. Lett.366:fnz117. 10.1093/femsle/fnz117
35
HarrisonX. A.McDevittA. D.DunnJ. C. (2021). Fungal microbiomes are determined by host phylogeny and exhibit widespread associations with the bacterial microbiome.Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci.288:20210552. 10.1098/rspb.2021.0552
36
HirdS. M. (2017). Evolutionary Biology Needs Wild Microbiomes.Front. Microbiol.8:725. 10.3389/fmicb.2017.00725
37
HirdS. M.SánchezC.CarstensB. C.BrumfieldR. T. (2015). Comparative Gut Microbiota of 59 Neotropical Bird Species.Front. Microbiol.6:1403. 10.3389/fmicb.2015.01403
38
HuG.LimK. S.HorvitzN.ClarkS. J.ReynoldsD. R.SapirN.et al (2016). Mass seasonal bioflows of high-flying insect migrants.Science3541584–1587. 10.1126/science.aah4379
39
JacquemynH.PozoM. I.Álvarez-PérezS.LievensB.FukamiT. (2021). Yeast–nectar interactions: metacommunities and effects on pollinators.Curr. Opin. Insect Sci.4435–40. 10.1016/j.cois.2020.09.014
40
JonesA. G.MasonC. J.FeltonG. W.HooverK. (2019). Host plant and population source drive diversity of microbial gut communities in two polyphagous insects.Sci. Rep.9:2792. 10.1038/s41598-019-39163-9
41
JonesR. T.SanchezL. G.FiererN. (2013). A Cross-Taxon Analysis of Insect-Associated Bacterial Diversity.PLoS One8:e61218. 10.1371/journal.pone.0061218
42
KellerA.McFrederickQ. S.DharampalP.SteffanS.DanforthB. N.LeonhardtS. D. (2021). (More than) Hitchhikers through the network: the shared microbiome of bees and flowers.Curr. Opin. Insect Sci.448–15. 10.1016/j.cois.2020.09.007
43
KnowlesS. C. L.EcclesR. M.BaltrūnaitėL. (2019). Species identity dominates over environment in shaping the microbiota of small mammals.Ecol. Lett.22826–837. 10.1111/ele.13240
44
KohlK. D. (2020). Ecological and evolutionary mechanisms underlying patterns of phylosymbiosis in host-associated microbial communities.Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci.375:2019025110.1098/rstb.2019.0251
45
KohlK. D.SkopecM. M.DearingM. D. (2014). Captivity results in disparate loss of gut microbial diversity in closely related hosts.Conserv. Physiol.2:cou009. 10.1093/conphys/cou009
46
KolodnyO.CallahanB. J.DouglasA. E. (2020). The role of the microbiome in host evolution.Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci.375:20190588. 10.1098/rstb.2019.0588
47
KrauelJ. J.BrownV. A.WestbrookJ. K.McCrackenG. F. (2018). Predator–prey interaction reveals local effects of high-altitude insect migration.Oecologia18649–58. 10.1007/s00442-017-3995-0
48
LeftwichP. T.EdgingtonM. P.ChapmanT. (2020). Transmission efficiency drives host-microbe associations.Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci.287:20200820. 10.1098/rspb.2020.0820
49
LewisW. B.MooreF. R.WangS. (2017). Changes in gut microbiota of migratory passerines during stopover after crossing an ecological barrier.Auk134137–145. 10.1642/AUK-16-120.1
50
LutzH. L.JacksonE. W.WebalaP. W.BabyesizaW. S.Kerbis PeterhansJ. C.DemosT. C.et al (2019). Ecology and Host Identity Outweigh Evolutionary History in Shaping the Bat Microbiome.mSystems4e511–e519. 10.1128/mSystems.00511-19
51
MallottE. K.AmatoK. R. (2021). Host specificity of the gut microbiome.Nat. Rev. Microbiol.19639–653. 10.1038/s41579-021-00562-3
52
MarkowT. A. (2015). The secret lives of Drosophila flies.Elife4:e06793. 10.7554/eLife.06793
53
MasonC. J.St ClairA.PeifferM. (2020). Diet influences proliferation and stability of gut bacterial populations in herbivorous lepidopteran larvae Y. Lou, ed.PLoS One15:e0229848. 10.1371/journal.pone.0229848
54
McKenzieV. J.SongS. J.DelsucF. (2017). The effects of captivity on the mammalian gut microbiome.Integr. Comp. Biol.57690–704. 10.1093/icb/icx090
55
MihaljevicJ. R. (2012). Linking metacommunity theory and symbiont evolutionary ecology.Trends Ecol. Evol.27323–329. 10.1016/j.tree.2012.01.011
56
MillerE. T.SvanbäckR.BohannanB. J. M. (2018). Microbiomes as Metacommunities: understanding Host-Associated Microbes through Metacommunity Ecology.Trends Ecol. Evol.33926–935. 10.1016/j.tree.2018.09.002
57
MoellerA. H.SandersJ. G. (2020). Roles of the gut microbiota in the adaptive evolution of mammalian species: microbiotas alter mammalian adaptation.Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci.375:20190597. 10.1098/rstb.2019.0597
58
MoellerA. H.SuzukiT. A.LinD.LaceyE. A.WasserS. K.NachmanM. W. (2017). Dispersal limitation promotes the diversification of the mammalian gut microbiota.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.11413768–13773. 10.1073/pnas.1700122114
59
MoranN. A.OchmanH.HammerT. J. (2019). Evolutionary and Ecological Consequences of Gut Microbial Communities.Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst.50451–475. 10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110617-062453
60
MorrisM. M.FrixioneN. J.BurkertA. C.DinsdaleE. A.VannetteR. L. (2019). Microbial abundance, composition, and function in nectar are shaped by flower visitor identity.FEMS Microbiol. Ecol.96:fiaa003. 10.1093/femsec/fiaa003
61
NishidaA. H.OchmanH. (2021). Captivity and the co-diversification of great ape microbiomes.Nat. Commun.12:5632. 10.1038/s41467-021-25732-y
62
ObengN.BanseptF.SieberM.TraulsenA.SchulenburgH. (2021). Evolution of Microbiota–Host Associations: the Microbe’s Perspective.Trends Microbiol.29779–787. 10.1016/j.tim.2021.02.005
63
PaisI. S.ValenteR. S.SporniakM.TeixeiraL. (2018). Drosophila melanogaster establishes a species-specific mutualistic interaction with stable gut-colonizing bacteria.PLoS Biol.16:e2005710. 10.1371/journal.pbio.2005710
64
QiaoH.KeeseyI. W.HanssonB. S.KnadenM. (2019). Gut microbiota affects development and olfactory behavior in Drosophila melanogaster.J. Exp. Biol.222:jeb192500. 10.1242/jeb.192500
65
RainaJ. B.FernandezV.LambertB.StockerR.SeymourJ. R. (2019). The role of microbial motility and chemotaxis in symbiosis.Nat. Rev. Microbiol.17284–294. 10.1038/s41579-019-0182-9
66
RauloA.AllenB. E.TroitskyT.HusbyA.FirthJ. A.CoulsonT.et al (2021). Social networks strongly predict the gut microbiota of wild mice.ISME J.152601–2613. 10.1038/s41396-021-00949-3
67
ReringC. C.VannetteR. L.SchaefferR. N.BeckJ. J. (2020). Microbial Co-Occurrence in Floral Nectar Affects Metabolites and Attractiveness to a Generalist Pollinator.J. Chem. Ecol.46659–667. 10.1007/s10886-020-01169-3
68
RiselyA.WaiteD.UjvariB.KlaassenM.HoyeB. (2017). Gut microbiota of a long-distance migrant demonstrates resistance against environmental microbe incursions.Mol. Ecol.265842–5854. 10.1111/mec.14326
69
RiselyA.WaiteD. W.UjvariB.HoyeB. J.KlaassenM. (2018). Active migration is associated with specific and consistent changes to gut microbiota in Calidris shorebirds.J. Anim. Ecol.87428–437. 10.1111/1365-2656.12784
70
RobinsonC. D.BohannanB. J.BrittonR. A. (2019). Scales of persistence: transmission and the microbiome.Curr. Opin. Microbiol.5042–49. 10.1016/j.mib.2019.09.009
71
RothschildD.WeissbrodO.BarkanE. (2018). Environment dominates over host genetics in shaping human gut microbiota.Nature555210–215. 10.1038/nature25973
72
San JuanP. A.CastroI.DhamiM. K. (2021). Captivity reduces diversity and shifts composition of the Brown Kiwi microbiome.Anim. Microbiome3:48. 10.1186/s42523-021-00109-0
73
San JuanP. A.HendershotJ. N.DailyG. C.FukamiT. (2020). Land-use change has host-specific influences on avian gut microbiomes.ISME J.14318–321. 10.1038/s41396-019-0535-4
74
SarkarA.HartyS.JohnsonK. V. A. (2020). Microbial transmission in animal social networks and the social microbiome.Nat. Ecol. Evol.41020–1035. 10.1038/s41559-020-1220-8
75
SatterfieldD. A.SillettT. S.ChapmanJ. W.AltizerS.MarraP. P. (2020). Seasonal insect migrations: massive, influential, and overlooked.Front. Ecol. Environ.18:335–344. 10.1002/fee.2217
76
SchaefferR. N.MeiY. Z.AndicoecheaJ.MansonJ. S.IrwinR. E. (2017). Consequences of a nectar yeast for pollinator preference and performance.Funct. Ecol.31613–621. 10.1111/1365-2435.12762
77
SchlägelU. E.GrimmV.BlaumN. (2020). Movement-mediated community assembly and coexistence.Biol. Rev.951073–1096. 10.1111/brv.12600
78
SchmidtK.EngelP. (2021). Mechanisms underlying gut microbiota–host interactions in insects.J. Exp. Biol.224:jeb20769610.1242/jeb.207696
79
SchretterC. E.VielmetterJ.BartosI.MarkaZ.MarkaS.ArgadeS.et al (2018). A gut microbial factor modulates locomotor behaviour in Drosophila.Nature563402–406. 10.1038/s41586-018-0634-9
80
ShapiraM. (2016). Gut Microbiotas and Host Evolution: scaling Up Symbiosis.Trends Ecol. Evol.31539–549. 10.1016/j.tree.2016.03.006
81
SieberM.PitaL.Weiland-BräuerN. (2019). Neutrality in the metaorganism.PLoS Biol.17:e3000298. 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000298
82
SieberM.TraulsenA.SchulenburgH.DouglasA. E. (2021). On the evolutionary origins of host-microbe associations.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.118.e201648711810.1073/pnas.2016487118
83
SkeenH. R.CooperN. W.HackettS. J.BatesJ. M.MarraP. P. (2021). Repeated sampling of individuals reveals impact of tropical and temperate habitats on microbiota of a migratory bird.Mol. Ecol.305900–5916. 10.1111/mec.16170
84
SongS. J.SandersJ. G.DelsucF. (2020). Comparative Analyses of Vertebrate Gut Microbiomes Reveal Convergence between Birds and Bats.MBio11e02901–19. 10.1128/mBio.02901-19
85
SuenamiS.Konishi NobuM.MiyazakiR. (2019). Community analysis of gut microbiota in hornets, the largest eusocial wasps, Vespa mandarinia and V. simillima.Sci. Rep.9:9830. 10.1038/s41598-019-46388-1
86
TiedeJ.DiepenbruckM.GadauJ.WemheuerB.DanielR.ScherberC. (2020). Seasonal variation in the diet of the serotine bat (Eptesicus serotinus): a high-resolution analysis using DNA metabarcoding.Basic Appl. Ecol.491–12. 10.1016/j.baae.2020.09.004
87
TiedeJ.ScherberC.MutschlerJ.McMahonK. D.GrattonC. (2017). Gut microbiomes of mobile predators vary with landscape context and species identity.Ecol. Evol.78545–8557. 10.1002/ece3.3390
88
TungJ.BarreiroL. B.BurnsM. B. (2015). Social networks predict gut microbiome composition in wild baboons.Elife4:e05224. 10.7554/eLife.05224
89
TurjemanS.CorlA.WolfendenA. (2020). Migration, pathogens and the avian microbiome: a comparative study in sympatric migrants and residents.Mol. Ecol.294706–4720. 10.1111/mec.15660
90
VannetteR. L. (2020). The Floral Microbiome: plant, Pollinator, and Microbial Perspectives.Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst.51363–386. 10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-011720-013401
91
VannetteR. L.FukamiT. (2017). Dispersal enhances beta diversity in nectar microbes.Ecol. Lett.20901–910. 10.1111/ele.12787
92
VianaD. S.SantamaríaL.FiguerolaJ. (2016). Migratory Birds as Global Dispersal Vectors.Trends Ecol. Evol.31763–775. 10.1016/j.tree.2016.07.005
93
WangY.KapunM.WaideleL.KuenzelS.BerglandA. O.StaubachF. (2020). Common structuring principles of the Drosophila melanogaster microbiome on a continental scale and between host and substrate.Environ. Microbiol. Rep.12220–228. 10.1111/1758-2229.12826
94
WertheimB.BaalenE. J. A.Van, DickeM.VetL. E. M. (2005). Pheromone-mediated aggregation in non-social arthropods: an evolutionary ecological perspective.Annu. Rev. Entomol.50321–346. 10.1146/annurev.ento.49.061802.123329
95
WongA. C. N.LuoY.JingX.FranzenburgS.BostA.DouglasA. E. (2015). The host as the driver of the microbiota in the gut and external environment of Drosophila melanogaster.Appl. Environ. Microbiol.816232–6240. 10.1128/AEM.01442-15
96
WottonK. R.GaoB.MenzM. H. M.MorrisR. K. A.BallS. G.LimK. S.et al (2019). Mass Seasonal Migrations of Hoverflies Provide Extensive Pollination and Crop Protection Services.Curr. Biol.29:2167–2173.e5. 10.1016/j.cub.2019.05.036
97
WuY.YangY.CaoL.YinH.XuM.WangZ.et al (2018). Habitat environments impacted the gut microbiome of long-distance migratory swan geese but central species conserved.Sci. Rep.8:13314. 10.1038/s41598-018-31731-9
98
XieY.XiaP.WangH.YuH.GiesyJ. P.ZhangY.et al (2016). Effects of captivity and artificial breeding on microbiota in feces of the red-crowned crane (Grus japonensis).Sci. Rep.6:33350. 10.1038/srep33350
99
YunJ. H.RohS. W.WhonT. W. (2014). Insect gut bacterial diversity determined by environmental habitat, diet, developmental stage, and phylogeny of host.Appl. Environ. Microbiol.805254–5264. 10.1128/AEM.01226-14
100
ZemenickA. T.VanetteR. L.RosenheimJ. A. (2021). Linked networks reveal dual roles of insect dispersal and species sorting for bacterial communities in flowers.Oikos130697–707. 10.1111/oik.06818
101
ZhangF.BergM.DierkingK.FélixM. A.ShapiraM.SamuelB. S.et al (2017). Caenorhabditis elegans as a model for microbiome research.Front. Microbiol.8:485. 10.3389/fmicb.2017.00485
Summary
Keywords
gut microbiota, movement ecology, microbial dispersal, host movement, migration, environmental acquisition, community assembly, social microbiome
Citation
Weinhold A (2022) Bowel Movement: Integrating Host Mobility and Microbial Transmission Across Host Taxa. Front. Microbiol. 13:826364. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.826364
Received
30 November 2021
Accepted
25 January 2022
Published
15 February 2022
Volume
13 - 2022
Edited by
Brendan J. M. Bohannan, University of Oregon, United States
Reviewed by
Isabel Gordo, Gulbenkian Institute of Science (IGC), Portugal
Updates
Copyright
© 2022 Weinhold.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Arne Weinhold, arne.weinhold@bio.lmu.de
This article was submitted to Systems Microbiology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Microbiology
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.