Final answer:
In the absence of antibiotics, bacteria carrying costly antibiotic-resistance genes may be outcompeted by non-resistant strains, leading to a population decline of antibiotic-resistant bacteria like MRSA.
Step-by-step explanation:
If the bacterium Staphylococcus aureus experiences a cost for maintaining one or more antibiotic-resistance genes, then in environments from which antibiotics are missing, we would expect a decrease in the frequency of those genes. The presence of antibiotic resistance is typically due to genetic adaptations that can also impose a fitness cost when the antibiotic pressure is absent. So, without the selective pressure provided by antibiotics, bacteria with such costly resistance genes may be outcompeted by those without them, leading to a population that is less resistant to antibiotics.
This change occurs because, in the absence of antibiotics, the advantages of having resistance genes no longer outweigh the costs of maintaining them, such as resource allocation or reduced growth rate. Therefore, over time, natural selection would favor bacterial strains without resistance genes. This phenomenon explains why the indiscriminate use of antibiotics can lead to population growth of resistant bacteria like MRSA, but if the use becomes infrequent, resistant bacteria might decline.