Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T17:36:51.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

RETRACTED – Interspecific interactions between Acanthocephalan species in the intestine of stone loach and minnow

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 April 2019

L. Bollache Open the ORCID record for L. Bollache [Opens in a new window]
L. Bollache*
Affiliation:
Laboratoire Chrono-environnement UMR CNRS 6249, Besançon, France Université de Bourgogne Franche Comté, 21000 Dijon, France
*
Author for correspondence: L. Bollache, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Interspecific interactions between parasites sharing the same host are often antagonistic; the presence of one species decreases the number of individuals or negatively affects both the distribution and reproduction of the other species. Antagonistic interactions between co-infecting parasites may translate into direct competition or interactive segregation, but elements of both may be present. Potential interactions between two acanthocephalan species, Pomphorhynchus laevis and Acanthocephalus anguillae, were studied in the field in two of their natural fish definitive hosts. There was no evidence for competitive exclusion between P. laevis and A. anguillae. However, a negative interaction was found for the first time in the field between these two species. Based on the analysis of parasite abundance and total biomass using a static regression approach, I found that the abundance and total biomass of parasites was also limited by host characteristics. These results are consistent with previous laboratory studies on competition between P. laevis and A. anguillae.

Type
Research Paper
Information
Journal of Helminthology , Volume 94 , 2020 , e49
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, RM and Gordon, DM (1982) Processes influencing the distribution of parasite numbers within host populations with special emphasis on parasite-induced host mortalities. Parasitology 85, 373–398.Google Scholar
Bashey, F (2015) Within-host competitive interactions as a mechanism for the maintenance of parasite diversity. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 370, 20140301.Google Scholar
Bates, RM and Kennedy, CR (1990) Interactions between the acanthocephalans Pomphorhynchus laevis and Acanthocephalus anguillae in rainbow trout: testing an exclusion hypothesis. Parasitology 100, 435–444.Google Scholar
Bates, RM and Kennedy, CR (1991) Potential interaction between Acanthocephalus anguillae and Pomphorhynchus laevis in their natural hosts chub, Leuciscus cephalus and the European eel, Anguilla anguilla. Parasitology 102, 289–297.Google Scholar
Brown, AF, Chubb, JC and Veltkamp, CJ (1986) A key to the species of Acanthocephala parasitic in British freshwater fishes. Journal of Fish Biology 28, 327–334.Google Scholar
Bush, AO, Lafferty, KD, Lotz, JM and Shostak, AW (1997) Parasitology meets ecology on its own terms: Margolis et al. revisited. Journal of Parasitology 83, 575–583.Google Scholar
Chappell, LH (1969) Competitive exclusion between two intestinal parasites of the three-spined stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus L. Journal of Parasitology 55, 775–778.Google Scholar
Dezfuli, BS, Rosetti, E and Fano, EA (1994). Occurrence of larval Acanthocephalus anguillae (Acanthocephala) in Asellus aquaticus (Crustacea, Isopoda) from the River Brenta. Italian Journal of Zoology 61, 77–81.Google Scholar
Dezfuli, BS, Giari, L, De Biaggi, S and Poulin, R (2001). Associations and interactions among intestinal helminths of the brown trout, Salmo trutta, in northern Italy. Journal of Helminthology 75, 331–336.Google Scholar
Dobson, AP (1985) The population dynamics of competition between parasites. Parasitology 91, 317–347.Google Scholar
Galli, P, Mariniello, L, Crosa, G, Ortis, M, Ambrogi, AO and D'Amelio, S (1998). Populations of Acanthocephalus anguillae and Pomphorhynchus laevis in rivers with different pollution levels. Journal of helminthology 72, 331–335.Google Scholar
Grey, AJ and Hayunga, EG (1980) Evidence for alternative site selection by Glaridacris larvei (Cestoda: Caryophyllidae) as a result of interspecific competition. Journal of Parasitology 66, 371–372.Google Scholar
Holland, C (1984) Interactions between Moniliformis (Acanthocephala) and Nippostrongylus (Nematoda) in the small intestine of laboratory rats. Parasitology 88, 303–315.Google Scholar
Holmes, JC (1962) Effects of concurrent infections on Hymenolepis diminuta (Cestoda) and Moniliformis dubius (Acanthocaphala). II. Effects on growth. Journal of Parasitology 48, 87–96.Google Scholar
Holmes, JC (1973) Site selection by parasite helminths: interspecific interactions, site segregation, and their importance to the development of helminth communities. Canadian Journal of Zoology 51, 333–347.Google Scholar
Holmes, JC and Price, PW (1986) Communities of parasites. pp. 187–213 in Anderson, DJ and Kikkawa, J (Eds) Community ecology: pattern and process. Oxford, UK, Blackwell Scientific Publications.Google Scholar
Karvonen, A, Terho, P, Seppälä, O, Jokela, J and Valtonen, ET (2006) Ecological divergence of closely related Diplostomum (Trematoda) parasites. Parasitology 133, 229–235.Google Scholar
Kennedy, CR, Bates, RM and Brown, AF (1989) Discontinuous distributions of fish acanthocephalans Pomphorhynchus laevis and Acanthocephalus anguillae in Britain and Ireland: an hypothesis. Journal of Fish Biology 34, 607–619.Google Scholar
Kuris, AM and Lafferty, KD (1994) Community structure: larval trematodes in snail hosts. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 25, 189–217.Google Scholar
Lagrue, C, Kaldonski, N, Perrot-Minnot, MJ, Motreuil, S and Bollache, L (2007). Modification of hosts' behavior by a parasite: field evidence for adaptive manipulation. Ecology 88, 2839–2847.Google Scholar
MacNeil, C, Dick, JTA, Bigsby, E, Elwood, RW, Montgomery, WI, Gibbins, CN and Kelly, DW (2002). The validity of the Gammarus: Asellus ratio as an index of organic pollution: abiotic and biotic influences. Water Research 36, 75–84.Google Scholar
Moret, Y, Bollache, L, Wattier, R and Rigaud, T (2007). Is the host or the parasite the most locally adapted in an amphipod–acanthocephalan relationship? A case study in a biological invasion context. International Journal for Parasitology 37, 637–644.Google Scholar
Pfister, CA (1995) Estimating competition coefficients from census data: a test with field manipulations of tidepool fishes. The American Naturalist 146, 271–291.Google Scholar
Poulin, R (1998) Evolutionary ecology of parasites. London, UK, Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Poulin, R and George-Nascimento, M (2007) The scaling of total parasite biomass with host body mass. International Journal for Parasitology 37, 359–364.Google Scholar
Rosenzweig, ML, Abramsky, Z and Brand, S (1984) Estimating species interactions in heterogenous environments. Oikos 43, 329–340.Google Scholar
Schad, GA (1966) Immunity, competition, and natural regulation of helminth populations. The American Naturalist 100, 259–264.Google Scholar
Schoener, TW (1974) Competition and the form of habitat shift. Theoretical Population Biology 6, 265–307.Google Scholar
Siegel, S and Castellan, NJ (1988) Nonparametric statistics for behavioral sciences. 2nd edn. New York, Mc Graw-Hill.Google Scholar
Sousa, WP (1993) Interspecific antagonism and species coexistence in a diverse guild of larval trematode parasites. Ecological Monograph 63, 103–128.Google Scholar
Sousa, WP (1994) Patterns and processes in communities of helminth parasites. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 9, 52–57.Google Scholar