Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-kw2vx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T20:50:03.201Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The microhabitat distribution of two Dactylogyrus species parasitizing the gills of the barbel, Barbus barbus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2024

D. Kadlec ,
A. Šimková  and
M. Gelnar
D. Kadlec
Affiliation:
Faculty of Science, Masaryk University, Kotlářská 2, 61137 Brno, Czech Republic
A. Šimková*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Science, Masaryk University, Kotlářská 2, 61137 Brno, Czech Republic Centre de Biologie et d'Ecologie Tropicale et Mediterranéenne, UMR 5555 CNRS, Université de Perpignan, Avenue de Villeneuve, 66860 Perpignan Cedex, France
M. Gelnar
Affiliation:
Faculty of Science, Masaryk University, Kotlářská 2, 61137 Brno, Czech Republic
*
*Fax: +420 5 41211214 E-mail: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The microhabitat distribution of two congeneric species Dactylogyrus carpathicus and D. malleus (Monogenea) parasitizing the gills of the barbel (Barbus barbus L.) was investigated. We tested whether congeneric species exhibited microhabitat preference and whether interspecific interactions could be attributed to the microhabitat segregation of congeners. The outlying mean index method was used to evaluate species microhabitats. Gill variables (different microhabitats within gills) were used as environmental factors characterizing the gills. When abundances of both species were highest, and no significant difference was found between the abundance of the two species, the gill segments and gill areas were the most important factors segregating the Dactylogyrus species on the gills. Niche overlap was low within each of the four gill arches, and parasites were segregated in the same microhabitats within each gill arch. When abundances of both species were low, each monogenean species was segregated at the level of the gill arches. When abundances of both species increased, the niche and overlap between species increased. The distribution of both congeneric species confirmed microhabitat preference within the gills. The results suggest that microhabitat preference is dependent on species abundances, species being segregated in the case of low abundance, possibly to increasing mating opportunities. Both niche and overlap between species increased with species abundance. In the case of the high abundance of both species, microhabitat preference seems to be related to interspecific interactions between monogenean species, as previously found for endoparasitic species.

Type
Review Article
Information
Journal of Helminthology , Volume 77 , Issue 4 , December 2003 , pp. 317 - 325
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2003

References

Bagge, A.M. & Valtonen, E.T. (1996) Experimental study on the influence of paper and pulp mill effluent on the gill parasite communities of roach (Rutilus rutilus) . Parasitology 112, 499–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchmann, K. (1989) Microhabitats of monogenean gill parasites on European eel (Anguilla anguilla) . Folia Parasitologica 36, 321–329.Google ScholarPubMed
Buchmann, K. & Bresciani, J. (1998) Microenvironmnet of Gyrodactylus derjavini on rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss: association between mucous cell density in skin and site selection. Parasitology Research 84, 17–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buchmann, K. & Lindenstrom, T. (2002) Interactions between monogenean parasites and their fish hosts. International Journal for Parasitology 32, 309–319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bush, A.O. & Holmes, J.C. (1986) Internal helminths of lesser scaup ducks: an interactive community. Canadian Journal of Zoology 64, 142–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bush, A.O., Lafferty, K.D., Lotz, J.M. & Shostack, A.W. (1997) Parasitology meets ecology on its own terms: Margolis et al. revisited. Journal of Parasitology 83, 575–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolédec, S., Chessel, D. & Gimaret-Carpentier, C. (2000) Niche separation in community analysis: a new method. Ecology 81, 2914–2927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
El Hafidi, F., Berrada-Rkhami, O., Bennazzou, T. & Gabrion, C. (1998) Microhabitat distribution and coexistence of Microcotylidae (Monogenea) on the gills of the striped mullet Mugil cephalus: chance or competition? Parasitology Research 84, 315–320.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geets, A., Coene, H. & Ollevier, F. (1997) Ectoparasites of the whitespotted rabbitfish, Siganus sutor (Valenciennes, 1835) of the Kenyan Coast: distribution within the host population and site selection on the gills. Parasitology 115, 69–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gelnar, M., Svobodová, Z. & Vykusová, B. (1990) Eudiplozoon nipponicum (Goto, 1891) – acclimatization of parasite in Czech ponds. Czech Fishery Bulletin 1, 11–18.Google Scholar
Gussev, A.V. (1985) Metazoa parasites. Part I. pp. 1–424 in Bauer, O.N. (Ed.) Identification key to parasites of freshwater fish. Vol. 2. Leningrad, Publ. House Nauka.Google Scholar
Gutiérez, P.A. & Martorelli, S.R. (1999) Niche preferences and spatial distribution of Monogenea on the gills of Pimelodus maculatus in Rio de la Plata (Argentina). Parasitology 119, 183–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, J.C. (1973) Site selection by parasitic helminths: interspecific interactions, site segregation, and their importance to the development of helminth communities. Canadian Journal of Zoology 51, 333–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, C.R. & Bush, A.O. (1992) Species richness in helminth communities: the importance of multiple congeners. Parasitology 104, 189–197.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koskivaara, M., Valtonen, E.T. & Vuori, K.M. (1992) Microhabitat distribution and coexistence of Dactylogyrus species (Monogenea) on the gills of roach. Parasitology 104, 273–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paperna, I. (1964) Competitive exclusion of Dactylogyrus extensus by Dactylogyrus vastator (Trematoda, Monogenea) on the gills of rare carp. Journal of Parasitology 50, 94–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pianka, E.C. (1976) Competition and niche theory, pp. 141–141 in May, R.M. (Ed.) Theoretical ecology. Principles and applications. London, Blackwell Scientific Publications.Google Scholar
Poulin, R. (1998) Evolutionary ecology of parasites. New York, Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Poulin, R. (2001) Interactions between species and the structure of helminth communities. Parasitology 122, (Suppl.), S3–S11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ramasamy, P. & Ramalingam, K. (1989) The occurrence, site specificity and frequency distribution of Bicotyle vellavoli on Pampus chinensis and Pampus argenteus . International Journal for Parasitology 19, 761–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramasamy, P., Ramalingam, K., Hanna, R.E.B. & Halton, D.W. (1985) Microhabitats of gill parasites (Monogenea and Copepoda) of teleosts (Scomberoides spp.). International Journal for Parasitology 15, 385–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichard, M., Jurajda, P., Šimková, A. & Matějusová, I. (2002) Size-related habitat use by bitterling (Rhodeus sericeus) in a regulated lowland river. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 2, 112–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohde, K. (1977) A non-competitive mechanism responsible for restricting niches in parasites. Zoologishe Anzeiger 199, 164–172.Google Scholar
Rohde, K. (1979) A critical evaluation of intrinsic and extrinsic factors responsible for niche restriction in parasites. American Naturalist 114, 648–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohde, K. (1991) Intra- and interspecific interactions in low density populations in resource-rich habitats. Oikos 60, 91–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohde, K. & Hobbs, R. (1986) Species segregation: competition or reinforcement of reproductive barriers? pp. 189–199 in Cremin, M., Dobson, C. & Moorhouse, D.E. (Eds) Parasite lives. Papers on parasites, their hosts and their associations to honour J. F. A. Sprent. St Lucia, London and New York, University of Queensland Press.Google Scholar
Rohde, K., Hayward, C., Heap, M. & Gosper, D. (1994) A tropical assemblage of ectoparasites: gill and head parasites of Lethrinus miniatus (Teleostei, Lethrinidae). International Journal for Parasitology 24, 1031–1053.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Šimková, A., Desdevises, Y., Gelnar, M. & Morand, S. (2000) Co-existence of nine gill ectoparasites (Dactylogyrus: Monogenea) parasitizing the roach (Rutilus rutilus L.): history and present ecology. International Journal for Parasitology 10, 1077–1088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Šimková, A., Ondra[ccaron]ková, M., Gelnar, M. & Morand, S. (2002) Morphology and coexistence of congeneric ectoparasite species: reinforcement of reproductive isolation? Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 76, 125–135.Google Scholar
Stock, T.M. & Holmes, J.C. (1988) Functional relationship and microhabitats distribution on enteric helminths of grebes (Podicipedidae): the evidence for interactive communities. Journal of Parasitology 74, 214–227.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thioulouse, J., Chessel, D., Dolédec, S. & Olivier, J.M. (1997) ADE-4: a multivariate analysis and graphical display software. Statistics and Computing 7, 75–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tokeshi, M. (1999) Species coexistence: ecological and evolutionary perspectives. London, Blackwell Science.Google Scholar
Wootten, R. (1974) The spatial distribution of Dactylogyrus amphibothrium on the gills of ruffe Gymnocephalus cernua and its relation to the relative amounts of water passing over the parts of the gills. Journal of Helminthology 48, 167–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zar, J.H. (1999) Biostatistical analysis. 4th edn. New Jersey, Prentice Hall.Google Scholar