Search

A great diversity of parasites, from viruses and bacteria to a range of remarkable eukaryotic organisms, exploit reptile and amphibian hosts. Recent increases in the emergence of infectious disease have revealed the importance of understanding the effects of interactions between hosts and their parasites. Here we review the effects of parasite infection on a range of demographic, behavioural, genomic and physiological factors in reptile and amphibian species. Reviewing these parasite roles collectively, and prioritising areas for research, advances our ecological understanding and guides direction for conservation in a time of rapid species decline. Poorly resolved systems include Gymnophionan amphibians and Crocodilian hosts, in addition to viral and bacterial parasites. Future research should seek to understand processes enabling population recovery and examining synergistic interactions of parasites with fragmentation, climate change and other processes that threaten species persistence.

Recent emergences of fungal diseases have caused catastrophic global losses of biodiversity. Temperature is one of the most important factors influencing host–fungus associations but the effects of temperature variability on disease development are rarely examined. The chytrid pathogen Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd) has had severe effects on populations of hundreds of rainforest‐endemic amphibian species but we know little about the effects of rainforest‐specific host body temperature cycles on infection patterns. To address this challenge, we used body temperature regimes experienced in nature by frogs in the Australian Wet Tropics to guide a controlled experiment investigating the effects of body temperature fluctuations on infection patterns in a model host (Litoria spenceri), with emphasis on exposing frogs to realistic “heat pulses” that only marginally exceed the thermal optimum of the fungus. We then exposed cultured Bd to an expanded array of heat pulse treatments and measured parameters of population growth to help resolve the role of host immunity in our in vivo results. Infections developed more slowly in frogs exposed to daily 4‐hr heat pulses of 26°C or 29°C than in frogs in constant temperature treatments without heat pulses (control). Frogs that experienced heat pulses were also less likely to exceed infection intensities at which morbidity and mortality become likely. Ten of 11 (91%) frogs from the daily 29°C heat pulse treatment even cleared their infections after approximately 9 weeks. Cultured Bd also grew more slowly when exposed to heat pulses than in constant‐temperature control treatments, suggesting that mild heat pulses have direct negative effects on Bd growth in nature, but precluding us from determining whether there was a concurrent benefit of heat pulses to host immunity. Our results suggest that even in habitats where average temperatures may be suitable for fungal growth and reproduction, infection risk or the outcome of