Advertisement

Parasitology Research

, Volume 102, Issue 5, pp 1001–1011 | Cite as

Parasite assemblages of European bitterling (Rhodeus amarus), composition and effects of habitat type and host body size

  • Martina DávidováEmail author
  • Markéta Ondračková
  • Pavel Jurajda
  • Milan Gelnar
Original Paper

Abstract

Parasite community composition of European bitterling (Rhodeus amarus), the only bitterling species occurring on the European continent, was investigated in 16 different localities from four European sea drainages during 1998–2007. A total of 41 species of metazoan parasites was identified. Nine parasite species are new records for European bitterling, namely Dactylogyrus rarissimus, D. suecicus, D. yinwenyingae, Gyrodactylus vimbi, Sphaerostomum globiporum, Petasiger sp., Paryphostomum radiatum, Ichthyocotylurus variegatus and Posthodiplostomum brevicaudatum. The specialist Gyrodactylus rhodei was the most widely distributed and one of the most prevalent species. The most frequent digenean species, represented by larval stages, was Metorchis xanthosomus. The parasite community of European bitterling was characterised by the dominance of generalists and parasites with autogenic life cycles. The rare occurrence of strictly endoparasitic species reflected the specific diet of the fish host. The character of the habitat significantly affected the parasite assemblages of bitterling. The greatest similarity was associated with lentic habitats (gravel pits and oxbows) and the lowest similarity between gravel pits and rivers. Juvenile bitterling from 8mm in length upwards were colonised by metazoan parasites, firstly by the monogenean G. rhodei. Host body size was positively correlated with parasite species richness, but the variability explained by length was low.

Keywords

Parasite Community Metazoan Parasite Tubenose Goby Lentic Habitat Riverine Habitat 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgement

We would like to thank Jaroslav Černý (Institute of Zoology, SAS, Bratislava, Slovak Republic), Mirosław Przybylski (Department of Ecology and Vertebrate Zoology, University of Lodz, Poland), Milen Vassilev and Teodora Trichkova (Institute of Zoology, BAS, Sofia, Bulgaria), André Gilles (Department of Hydrobiology, University of Provence, Marseille, France), Martin Reichard (Institute of Vertebrate Biology, ASCR, Brno, Czech Republic) and angling clubs in the Czech Republic for field assistance and cooperation during this project. We would also like to thank Katka Houdková for her help with statistical analyses. We are very grateful to Graham Kearn for help with our English. The work was supported by the Research Project of the Masaryk University (no. 0021622416) and the Ichthyoparasitology Research Centre of the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic (LC 522). The Grant Agency of the Czech Republic (no. 524/07/1610).

References

  1. Arai R (1988) Fish systematics and cladistics. In: Ichthyology Currents 1988. Asakura Shoten, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  2. Bagge AM, Valtonen ET (1999) Development of monogenean communities on the gills of roach fry (Rutilus rutilus). Parasitology 118:479–487PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barber I, Hoare D, Krause J (2000) Effects of parasites on fish behaviour: a review and evolutionary perspective. Rev Fish Biol Fish 10:131–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blažek R, Gelnar M (2006) Temporal and spatial distribution of glochidial larval stages of European unionid mussel (Mollusca: Unionidae) on host fishes. Folia Parasit 53:98–106Google Scholar
  5. Brickle P, MacKenzie K, Pike A (2006) Variation in the parasite fauna of the Patagonian tooth fish (Dissostichus eleginoides Smitt, 1898), with length, season, and depth of habitat around the Falkland Islands. J Parasitol 92:282–291PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bush AO, Lafferty KD, Lotz JM, Shostak AW (1997) Parasitology meets ecology on its own terms: Margolis et al. Revisited. J Parasitol 83:575–583PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dávidová M, Jarkovský J, Matějusová I, Gelnar M (2005a) Seasonal occurrence and metrical variability of Gyrodactylus rhodei Zitnan 1964 (Monogenea, Gyrodactylidae). Parasitol Res 95:398–405PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dávidová M, Ondračková M, Baruš V, Reichard M, Koubková B (2005b) Nematode infections of the European bitterling (Rhodeus sericeus Pallas, 1776: Cypriniformes). Helmithologia 42:45–48Google Scholar
  9. Ergens R, Lom J (1970) Causative agents of parasitic fish diseases. Academia, PragueGoogle Scholar
  10. Esch GW, Fernández JC (1993) A functional biology of parasitism. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Fischer SA, Kelso WE (1990) Parasite fauna development in juvenile bluegills and largemouth bass. T Am Fish Soc 119:877–884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gayevskaya AV, Gussev AV, Delyamure SL, Donets S, Iskova NI, Kornyushin VV, Kovaleva AA, Margaritov NM, Markevich AP, Mordvinova TN, Najdenova NN, Nikolaeva VM, Parukhin AM, Pogoreltseva TP, Smogorzhevskaya LA, Solonchenko AI, Shtein GA, Schulman SS (1975) The key of the parasites of vertebrates from the Black Sea and Sea of Azov. Naukova Dumka, KievGoogle Scholar
  13. Gelnar M, Koubková B, Pláňková H, Jurajda P (1994) Report on metazoan parasites of fishes of the River Morava with remarks on the effect of water pollution. Helminthologia 31:47–56Google Scholar
  14. Guégan JF, Hugueny B (1994) A nested parasite species subset pattern in tropical fish: host as major determinant of parasite infracommunity structure. Oecologia 100:184–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gussev AV (1985) Monogenea. In Bauer ON (Ed.): Identification Key to Parasites of Fresh-water Fishes. Part 2. Publ. House Nauka, LeningradGoogle Scholar
  16. Hanski I (1982) Dynamics of regional distribution—the core and satellite species hypothesis. Oikos 38:210–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harris PD, Shinn AB, Cable J, Bakke TA (2004) Nominal species of the genus Gyrodactylus von Nordmann 1832 (Monogenea: Gyrodactylidae), with a list of principal host species. Syst Parasitol 59:1–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hogue C, Swig B (2007) Habitat quality and endoparasitism in the Pacific sanddab Cithraichthys sordidus from Santa Monica Bay, southern California. J Fish Biol 70:231–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Holmes JC (1987) The structure of helminth communities. Int J Parasitol 17:203–208PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kadlec D, Šimková A, Jarkovský J, Gelnar M (2003) Parasite community of freshwater fish under flood conditions. Parasitol Res 89:272–283PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Koubková B, Baruš V (2000) Metazoan parasites of the recently established tubenose goby (Proterorhinus marmoratus: Gobiidae) population from the South Moravian reservoir, Czech Republic. Helminthologia 37:89–95Google Scholar
  22. Kozhara AV, Zhulidov AV, Gollasch S, Przybylski M, Poznyak VG, Zhulidov DA, Gurtovaya TY (2007) Range extension and conservation status of the bitterling Rhodeus sericeus amarus in Russia and adjacent countries. Folia Zool 56:97–108Google Scholar
  23. Malmberg G (1970) The excretory systems and the marginal hooks as a basis for the systematics of Gyrodactylus (Trematoda, Monogenea). Ark Zool 23:1–235Google Scholar
  24. Morand S, Cribb TH, Kulbicki M, Rigby MC, Chauvet C, Dufour V, Faliex E, Galzin R, Lo CM, Lo-Yat A, Pichelin S, Sasal P (2000) Endoparasite species richness of New Caledonian butterfly fishes: host density and diet matter. Parasitology 121:65–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moravec F (1994) Parasitic Nematodes of Freshwater Fishes of Europe. Academia, PrahaGoogle Scholar
  26. Muñoz G, Grutter AS, Cribb TH (2007) Structure of the parasite communities of a coral reef fish assemblage (Labridae): testing ecological and phylogenetic host factors. J Parasitol 93:17–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Niewiadomska K (2003) Parasites of Fish in Poland (Digenea). WarsawGoogle Scholar
  28. Ondračková M, Šimková A, Gelnar M, Jurajda P (2004) Posthodiplostomum cuticola (Digenea: Diplostomatidae) in intermediate fish hosts: factors contributing to the parasite infection and prey selection by definitive bird host. Parasitology 129:761–770PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Piasecki W, Goodwin AE, Eiras JC, Nowak BF (2004) Importance of Copepoda in Freshwater Aquaculture. Zool Stud 43:193–205Google Scholar
  30. Poulin R (1992) Determination of host-specificity in parasites of freshwater fishes. Int J Parasitol 22:753–758PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Poulin R (2003) The decay of similarity with geographical distance in parasite communities of vertebrate hosts. J Biogeogr 30:1609–1615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Przybylski M (1996) The diel feeding pattern of bitterling, Rhodeus sericeus amarus (Bloch) in the Wieprz-Krzna canal, Poland. Pol Arch Hydrobiol 43:203–212Google Scholar
  33. Przybylski M, Zięba G (2000) Microhabitat preference of European bitterling, Rhodeus sericeus in the Drzewicka River (Pilica basin). Pol Arch Hydrobiol 47:99–114Google Scholar
  34. Reichard M, Jurajda P (1999) Patterns of ontogenetic changes in relative growth in the precocial cyprinid, bitterling (Rhodeus sericeus). Netherland Journal of Zoology 49:111–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Reichard M, Jurajda P, Šimková A, Matějusová I (2002) Size-related habitat use by bitterling (Rhodeus sericeus) in a regulated lowland river. Ecol Freshw Fish 11:112–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Reichard M, Ondračková M, Przybylski M, Liu H, Smith C (2006) The cost and benefits in an unusual symbiosis: experimental evidence that bitterling fish (Rhodeus serieus) are parasites of unionid mussels in Europe. J Evol Biol 19:788–796PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Reichard M, Liu H, Smith C (2007) The co-evolutionary relationship between bitterling fishes and freshwater mussels: insights from interspecific comparisons. Evol Ecol Res 9:239–259Google Scholar
  38. Sasal P, Morand S, Guégan JF (1997) Determinants of parasite species richness in Mediterranean marine fishes. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 149:61–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Seppäla O, Karvonem A, Valtonen ET (2005) Manipulation of fish host by eye flukes in relation to cataract formation and parasite infectivity. Anim Behav 70:889–894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Simkova A, Morand S, Matejusova I, Jurajda P, Gelnar M (2001) Local and regional influences on patterns of parasite species richness of central European fishes. Biodivers Conserv 10:511–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Smith C, Reichard M, Jurajda P, Przybylski M (2004) The reproductive ecology of the European bitterling (Rhodeus sericeus). J Zool Lond 262:107–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. StatSoft, Inc. (2006) STATISTICA, version 7. http://www.statsoft.com
  43. Thoney DA (1991) Population dynamics and community analysis of the parasite fauna of juvenile spot, Leiostomum xanthurus (Lacepede), and Atlantic croaker (Linnaeus), (Sciaenidae) in two estuaries along the middle Atlantic coast of the United States. J Fish Biol 39:515–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Van Damme D, Bogutskaya N, Hoffmann RC, Smith C (2007) The introduction of the European bitterling (Rhodeus amarus) to west and central Europe. Fish Fish 7:1–28Google Scholar
  45. Vojtková L (1976) Nematodes (Nematoda) of amphibians of ČSSR. Fac Scient Nat Uni Purkynianae Brunensis, Tomus XVII, Biologia 55:5–80Google Scholar
  46. Whittington ID, Cribb BW, Hamwood TE, Halliday JA (2000) Host-specifity of monogenean (platyhelminth) parasites: a role for anterior adhesive areas? Int J Parasitol 30:305–320PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martina Dávidová
    • 1
    Email author
  • Markéta Ondračková
    • 1
    • 2
  • Pavel Jurajda
    • 2
  • Milan Gelnar
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Botany and Zoology, Faculty of ScienceMasaryk University BrnoBrnoCzech Republic
  2. 2.Institute of Vertebrate BiologyAcademy of Sciences of the Czech RepublicBrnoCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations