Advertisement

Journal of Chemical Ecology

, Volume 12, Issue 8, pp 1651–1658 | Cite as

Role of chemical substances from fish hosts in hatching and host-finding in monogeneans

  • G. C. Kearn
Article

Abstract

Hatching responses to chemical stimuli appear to have evolved independently in different kinds of monogenean skin and gill parasites of fishes, particularly in those parasites associated with bottom-dwelling hosts. Some monogeneans, such asEntobdella soleae, have two hatching strategies, responding readily to host skin mucus but hatching spontaneously in small numbers in the absence of the host. Other monogeneans, such asAcanthocotyle lobianchi, have abandoned spontaneous hatching and rely entirely on a “sit- and-wait” strategy, but improvements in the speed of hatching provide opportunities to take advantage of brief periods of contact between the eggs and the host. This has led to the loss of ciliated epidermal cells and to the inability to swim. Comparison of the eggs and hatching responses of two unrelated monogeneans,Leptocotyle minor andHexabothrium appendiculatum, which share the same dogfish host, reveals evidence of convergence. Small, stable molecules such as urea, excreted by the host, have been implicated as hatching stimulants in monogeneans. There is evidence that host recognition inE. soleae is by chemoperception but, in contrast with the lack of specificity of the chemical hatching stimuli, this appears to be of a specific nature.

Key words

Monogeneans fish parasites chemical hatching factors hostfinding 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Caley, J. 1975.In vitro hatching of the tapewormMoniezia expansa (Cestoda: Anoplocephalidae) and some properties of the egg membranes.Z. Parasitenk. 45:335–346.Google Scholar
  2. Chan, B., andWu, B. 1984. Studies on the pathogenicity, biology and treatment ofPseudodactylogyrus for the eels in fish farms.Acta Zool. Sin. 30:173–180 (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  3. Euzet, L., andRaibaut, A. 1960. Le développement post-larvaire deSqualonchocotyle torpedinis (Price 1942) (Monogenea, Hexabothriidae).Bull. Soc. Neuchätel. Sci. Nat. 83:101–108.Google Scholar
  4. Holmes, S.D., andFairweather, I. 1982.Hymenolepis diminuta: The mechanism of egg hatching.Parasitology 85:237–250.Google Scholar
  5. Kearn, G.C. 1963a. The life cycle of the monogeneanEntobdella soleae, a skin parasite of the common sole.Parasitology 53:253–263.Google Scholar
  6. Kearn, G.C. 1963b. The egg, oncomiracidium and larval development ofEntobdella soleae, a monogenean skin parasite of the common sole.Parasitology 53:435–447.Google Scholar
  7. Kearn, G.C. 1967. Experiments on host-finding and host-specificity in the monogenean skin parasiteEntobdella soleae.Parasitology 57:585–605.Google Scholar
  8. Kearn, G.C. 1973. An endogenous circadian hatching rhythm in the monogenean skin parasiteEntobdella soleae and its relationship to the activity rhythm of the host (Solea solea).Parasitology 66:101–122.Google Scholar
  9. Kearn, G.C. 1974. The effect of fish skin mucus on hatching in the monogenean parasiteEntobdella soleae from the skin of the common sole,Solea solea.Parasitology 68:173–188.Google Scholar
  10. Kearn, G.C. 1975. The mode of hatching of the monogeneanEntobdella soleae, a skin parasite of the common sole (Solea solea).Parasitology 71:419–431.Google Scholar
  11. Kearn, G.C. 1981. Behaviour of oncomiracidia.Parasitology 82:57–59.Google Scholar
  12. Kearn, G.C. 1982. Rapid hatching induced by light intensity reduction in the monogeneanEntobdella diadema.J. Parasitol. 68:171–172.Google Scholar
  13. Kearn, G.C. 1986. The eggs of monogeneans.Adv. Parasitol. 30: In press.Google Scholar
  14. Kearn, G.C., andMacdonald, S. 1976. The chemical nature of host hatching factors in the monogenean skin parasitesEntobdella soleae andAcanthocotyle lobianchi.Int. J. Parasitol. 6:457–466.Google Scholar
  15. Kennedy, C.R. 1965. The mode of hatching of the egg of the cestodeArchigetes limnodrili (Yamaguti). Parasitology 55:18 pp.Google Scholar
  16. Ktari, M.H. 1969. Recherches sur l'anatomie et la biologie deMicrocotyle salpae Parona et Perugia. 1890 parasite deBox salpa L. (Téléostéen).Ann. Parasitol. Hum. Comp. 44:425–440.Google Scholar
  17. Macdonald, S. 1974. Host skin mucus as a hatching stimulant inAcanthocotyle lobianchi, a monogenean from the skin ofRaja spp.Parasitology 68:331–338.Google Scholar
  18. Macdonald, S., andLlewellyn, J. 1980. Reproduction inAcanthocotyle greeni n. sp. (Monogenea) from the skin ofRaja spp. at Plymouth.J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U.K. 60:81–88.Google Scholar
  19. Shinn, G.L. 1983. The life history ofSyndisyrinx franciscanus, a symbiotic turbellarian from the intestine of echinoids, with observations on the mechanism of hatching.Ophelia 22:57–79.Google Scholar
  20. Smyth, J.D., andHalton, D.W. 1983. The Physiology of Trematodes. Cambridge University Press, Cambrige, U.K., London, New York.Google Scholar
  21. Whittington, I.D., andKearn, G.C. 1986. Rhythmical hatching and oncomiracidial behaviour in the hexabothriid monogeneanRajonchocotyle emarginata from the gills ofRaja spp.J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U.K. 66:93–111.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. C. Kearn
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Biological SciencesUniversity of East AngliaNorwichUK

Personalised recommendations