Advertisement

Parasitology Research

, Volume 118, Issue 9, pp 2531–2541 | Cite as

Eye fluke (Tylodelphys clavata) infection impairs visual ability and hampers foraging success in European perch

  • Jenny Carolina Vivas MuñozEmail author
  • David Bierbach
  • Klaus Knopf
Fish Parasitology - Original Paper

Abstract

Visual performance and environmental conditions can influence both behavioral patterns and predator-prey interactions of fish. Eye parasites can impair their host’s sensory performance with important consequences for the detection of prey, predators, and conspecifics. We used European perch (Perca fluviatilis) experimentally infected with the eye fluke Tylodelphys clavata and evaluated their feeding behavior and competitive ability under competition with non-infected conspecifics, in groups of four individuals, for two different prey species (Asellus aquaticus and Daphnia magna). To test whether the effect of T. clavata infection differs at different light conditions, we performed the experiments at two light intensities (600 and 6 lx). Foraging efficiency of perch was significantly affected by infection but not by light intensity. The distance at which infected fish attacked both prey species was significantly shorter in comparison to non-infected conspecifics. Additionally, infected fish more often unsuccessfully attacked A. aquaticus. Although the outcome of competition depended on prey species, there was a general tendency that non-infected fish consumed more of the available prey under both light intensities. Even though individual prey preferences for either A. aquaticus or D. magna were observed, we could not detect that infected fish change their prey preference to compensate for a reduced competitive foraging ability. As infection of T. clavata impairs foraging efficiency and competitive ability, infected fish would need to spend more time foraging to attain similar food intake as non-infected conspecifics; this presumably increases predation risk and potentially enhances transmission success to the final host.

Keywords

Tylodelphys clavata Eye fluke Perca fluviatilis Host-parasite interaction Foraging behavior Prey preference Intraspecific competition 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Dr. Jasminca Behrmann-Godel for her valuable advice on raising perch in the lab and Mathias Kunow for his support in collecting fertilized eggs of perch. Further, we would like to thank Janne Ros Irmler and Amrei Gründer for their support with the videos and Dr. Sabine Hilt for her valuable comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript.

Funding information

This research was supported by the Graduate School IMPact-Vector funded by the Senate Competition Committee grant (SAW-2014-SGN-3) of the Leibniz-Association. Research of D.B. is currently supported by the DFG (BI 1828/2-1).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Tagging of the fish, experimental infection, and behavioral experiments were performed in accordance with the German Animal Welfare Act and were approved by the Berlin State Office for Health and Social Affairs (LaGeSo, reference number G0243/16).

References

  1. Ali MA, Ryder RA, Anctil M (1977) Photoreceptors and visual pigments as related to behavioral responses and preferred habitats of perches (Perca spp.) and pikeperches (Stizostedion spp.). J Fish Res Board Can 34:1475–1480.  https://doi.org/10.1139/f77-212 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrikovics S (1981) Further data to daily migration of the larvae of aquatic insect. Opusc Zool 17–18:49–55Google Scholar
  3. Barber I (2007) Parasites, behaviour and welfare in fish. Appl Anim Behav Sci 104:251–264.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2006.09.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barber I, Huntingford FA (1995) The effect of Schistocephalus solidus (Cestoda: Pseudophyllidea) on the foraging and shoaling behaviour of three-spined sticklebacks, Gasterosteus aculeatus. Behaviour 132:1223–1240.  https://doi.org/10.1163/156853995X00540 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barber I, Wright HA (2005) Effects of parasites on fish behaviour: interactions with host physiology. In: Katherine RWW, Sloman A, Sigal B (eds) Fish physiology. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 109–149.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1546-5098(05)24004-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barber I, Hoare D, Krause J (2000) Effects of parasites on fish behaviour: an evolutionary perspective and review. Rev Fish Biol Fish 10:131–165.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016658224470 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barber I, Mora AB, Payne EM, Weinersmith KL, Sih A (2017) Parasitism, personality and cognition in fish. Behav Process 141:205–219.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2016.11.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bergman E (1988) Foraging abilities and niche breadths of two percids, Perca fluviatilis and Gymnocephalus cernua, under different environmental conditions. J Anim Ecol 57:443–453.  https://doi.org/10.2307/4916 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brännäs E, Alanärä A, Magnhagen C (2001) The social behaviour of fish. In: Keeling LJ, Gonyou HW (eds) Social behaviour in farm animals. CABI publishing, New York, pp 275–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buchmann K, Moller SH, Uldal A, Bresciani J (1997) Different seasonal infection dynamics of two species of eye-flukes (Diplostomum spathaceum and Tylodelphys clavata) in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Bull Eur Assoc Fish Pathol 17:165–170Google Scholar
  11. Craig JF (1977) Seasonal changes in the day and night activity of adult perch, Perca fluviatilis L. J Fish Biol 11:161–166.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1977.tb04109.x
  12. Craig JF (1978) A study of the food and feeding of perch, Perca fluviatilis L., inWindermere. Freshw Biol 8:59–68.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.1978.tb01426.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Craig JF (2000) Percid fishes: systematics, ecology and exploitation. Blackwell Science, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crowden AE, Broom DM (1980) Effects of the eyefluke, Diplostomum spathaceum, on the behaviour of dace (Leuciscus leuciscus). Anim Behav 28:287–294.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(80)80031-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Diehl S (1988) Foraging efficiency of three freshwater fishes: effects of structural complexity and light. Oikos 53:207–214.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3566064 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eiane K, Aksnes DL, Giske J (1997) The significance of optical properties in competition among visual and tactile planktivores: a theoretical study. Ecol Model 98:123–136.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3800(96)01909-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eklöv P (1992) Group foraging versus solitary foraging efficiency in piscivorous predators: the perch, Perca fluviatilis, and pike, Esox lucius, patterns. Anim Behav 44:313–326.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-3472(92)90037-A CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Faltýnková A, Našincová V, Kablásková L (2007) Larval trematodes (Digenea) of the great pond snail, Lymnaea stagnalis (L.), (Gastropoda, Pulmonata) in Central Europe: a survey of species and key to their identification. Parasite 14:39–51.  https://doi.org/10.1051/parasite/2007141039 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Flink H, Behrens JW, Svensson PA (2017) Consequences of eye fluke infection on anti-predator behaviours in invasive round gobies in Kalmar sound. Parasitol Res 116:1653–1663.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00436-017-5439-5 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Frankiewicz P, Wojtal-Frankiewicz A (2012) Two different feeding tactics of young-of-the-year perch, Perca fluviatilis L., inhabiting the littoral zone of the lowland Sulejow Reservoir (Central Poland). Ecohydrol Hydrobiol 12:35–41.  https://doi.org/10.2478/v10104-012-0001-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gopko M, Mikheev VN, Taskinen J (2017) Deterioration of basic components of the anti-predator behavior in fish harboring eye fluke larvae. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 71:68.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-017-2300-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Guma’a SA (1978) The food and feeding habits of young perch, Perca fluviatilis, in Windermere. Freshw Biol 8:177–187.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.1978.tb01439.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Huusko A, Vuorimies O, Sutela T (1996) Temperature- and light-mediated predation by perch on vendace larvae. J Fish Biol 49:441–457.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1996.tb00040.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jakobsen PJ, Johnsen GH, Larsson P (1988) Effects of predation risk and parasitism on the feeding ecology, habitat use, and abundance of lacustrine threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 45:426–431.  https://doi.org/10.1139/f88-051 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kennedy CR (2001) Interspecific interactions between larval digeneans in the eyes of perch, Perca fluviatilis. Parasitology 122:S13–S22.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031182000016851 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Khorramshahi O, Schartau JM, Kröger RHH (2008) A complex system of ligaments and a muscle keep the crystalline lens in place in the eyes of bony fishes (teleosts). Vis Res 48:1503–1508.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2008.03.017 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Kozicka J, Niewiadomska K (1960) Studies on the biology and taxonomy of trematodes of the genus Tylodelphys Diesing, 1850 (Diplostomatidae). Acta Parasitol Pol 8:379–400Google Scholar
  28. Lafferty KD, Kuris AM (2012) Ecological consequences of manipulative parasites. In: Hughes DP, Brodeur J, Thomas F (eds) Host manipulation by parasites. Oxford university press, Oxford, pp 158–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Metcalfe NB (1986) Intraspecific variation in competitive ability and food intake in salmonids: consequences for energy budgets and growth rates. J Fish Biol 28:525–532.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1986.tb05190.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mikeš L (2001) Simplified determination key, Cercariae. 1st workshop on bird schistosomes and cercarial dermatitis. Dolní Vĕstonice, Czech RepublicGoogle Scholar
  31. Milinski M (1984) Parasites determine a predator’s optimal feeding strategy. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 15:35–37.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00310212 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Moore J (2002) Parasites and behaviour of animals. Oxford series in ecology and evolution. Oxford University Press, New York, p 315Google Scholar
  33. Nurminen L, Pekcan-Hekim Z, Horppila J (2010) Feeding efficiency of planktivorous perch Perca fluviatilis and roach Rutilus rutilus in varying turbidity: an individual-based approach. J Fish Biol 76:1848–1855.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2010.02600.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Owen SF, Barber I, Hart PJB (1993) Low level infection by eye fluke, Diplostomum spp., affects the vision of three-spined sticklebacks, Gasterosteus aculeatus. J Fish Biol 42:803–806.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1993.tb00387.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Padros F, Knuden R, Blasco-Costa I (2018) Histopathological characterisation of retinal lesions associated to Diplostomum species (Platyhelminthes: Trematoda) infection in polymorphic Arctic charr Salvelinus alpinus. Int J Parasitol 7:68–74.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijppaw.2018.01.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Partridge BL, Pitcher TJ (1980) The sensory basis of fish schools: relative roles of lateral line and vision. J Comp Physiol 135(4):315–325.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00657647 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pascoe D, Mattey D (1977) Dietary Stress in Parasitized and Non-parasitized Gasterosteus aculeatus L. Z Parasitenkd 51:179–186.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00500957 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pekcan-Hekim Z, Joensuu L, Horppila J (2013) Predation by visual planktivore perch (Perca fluviatilis) in a turbulent and turbid environment. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 70:854–859.  https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-2012-0466 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Persson L (1983) Food consumption and competition between age classes in a perch Perca fluviatilis population in a shallow eutrophic lake. Oikos 40:197–207.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3544583 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Persson L (1986) Effects of reduced interspecific competition on resource utilization in perch (Perca fluviatilis). Ecology 67:355–364.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1938578 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pitcher TJ, Parrish JK (1993) Functions of shoaling behaviour in teleosts. In: Pitcher TJ (ed) Behaviour of teleost fish. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 363–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Poulin R (1995) “Adaptive” changes in the behaviour of parasitized animals: a critical review. Int J Parasitol 25:1371–1383.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-7519(95)00100-X CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Poulin R (2007) Evolutionary ecology of parasites 2nd edn. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  44. Rahn AK, Vitt S, Drolshagen L, Scharsack JP, Rick IP, Bakker TCM (2018) Parasitic infection of the eye lens affects shoaling preferences in three-spined stickleback. Biol J Linn Soc 123(2):377–387.  https://doi.org/10.1093/biolinnean/blx155 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Richmond HE, Hrabik TR, Mensinger AF (2004) Light intensity, prey detection and foraging mechanisms of age 0 year yellow perch. J Fish Biol 65:195–205.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-1112.2004.00444.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sandström A (1999) Visual ecology of fish – a review with special reference to percids. Natl Bd Fish Pub Fiskeriverket Rapp 2:45–80Google Scholar
  47. Seppälä O, Karvonen A, Valtonen ET (2004) Parasite-induced change in host behaviour and susceptibility to predation in an eye fluke-fish interaction. Anim Behav 68:257–263.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2003.10.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Seppälä O, Karvonen A, Valtonen ET (2005a) Impaired crypsis of fish infected with a trophically transmitted parasite. Anim Behav 70:895–900.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2005.01.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Seppälä O, Karvonen A, Valtonen ET (2005b) Manipulation of fish host by eye flukes in relation to cataract formation and parasite infectivity. Anim Behav 70:889–894.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2005.01.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Seppälä O, Karvonen A, Valtonen ET (2008) Shoaling behaviour of fish under parasitism and predation risk. Anim Behav 75:145–150.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.04.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Seppälä O, Karvonen A, Valtonen ET (2012) Behavioural mechanisms underlying ‘specific’ host manipulation by a trophically transmitted parasite. Evol Ecol Res 14:73–81Google Scholar
  52. Shariff M, Richards RH, Sommerville C (1980) The histopathology of acute and chronic infections of rainbow trout Salmo gairdneri Richardson with eye flukes, Diplostomum spp. J Fish Dis 3:455–465.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2761.1980.tb00432.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Staffan F, Magnhagen C, Alanärä A (2002) Variation in food intake within groups of juvenile perch. J Fish Biol 60:771–774.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2002.tb01702.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Strand Å, Alanärä A, Magnhagen C (2007) Effect of group size on feed intake, growth and feed efficiency of juvenile perch. J Fish Biol 71:615–619.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2007.01497.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stumbo AD, Poulin R (2016) Possible mechanism of host manipulation resulting from a diel behaviour pattern of eye-dwelling parasites? Parasitology 143:1261–1267.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031182016000810 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Svanbäck R, Persson L (2004) Individual diet specialization, niche width and population dynamics: implications for trophic polymorphisms. J Anim Ecol 73:973–982.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-8790.2004.00868.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ubels JL, DeJong RJ, Hoolsema B, Wurzberger A, Nguyen T, Blankespoor HD, Blankespoor CL (2018) Impairment of retinal function in yellow perch (Perca flavescens) by Diplostomum baeri metacercariae. Int J Parasitol Parasites Wildl 7:171–179.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijppaw.2018.05.001 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  58. Utne ACW (1997) The effect of turbidity and illumination on the reaction distance and search time of the marine planktivore Gobiusculus flavescens. J Fish Biol 50:926–938.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1997.tb01619.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Vinyard GL, O’Brien J (1976) Effects of light and turbidity on the reactive distance of bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus). J Fish Res Board Can 33(12):2845–2849.  https://doi.org/10.1139/f76-342 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Vivas Muñoz JC, Staaks G, Knopf K (2017) The eye fluke Tylodelphys clavata affects prey detection and intraspecific competition of European perch (Perca fluviatilis). Parasitol Res 116:2561–2567.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00436-017-5564-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Voutilainen A, Figueiredo K, Huuskonen H (2008) Effects of the eye fluke Diplostomum spathaceum on the energetics and feeding ofArctic charr Salvelinus alpinus. J Fish Biol 73:2228–2237.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2008.02050.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Westerberg M, Staffan F, Magnhagen C (2004) Influence of predation risk on individual competitive ability and growth in Eurasian perch, Perca fluviatilis. Anim Behav 67:273–279.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2003.06.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Winfield IJ (1986) The influence of simulated aquatic macrophytes on the zooplankton consumption rate of juvenile roach, Rutilus rutilus, rudd, Scardinius erythrophthalmus, and perch, Perca fluviatilis. I J Fish Biol 29:37–48.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1986.tb04997.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jenny Carolina Vivas Muñoz
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • David Bierbach
    • 1
  • Klaus Knopf
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland FisheriesBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Faculty of Life SciencesHumboldt UniversityBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations