Intensity-dependent energetic costs in a reciprocal parasitic relationship
Parasitic infections elicit host defences that pose energetic trade-offs with other fitness-related traits. Bitterling fishes and unionid mussels are involved in a two-way parasitic interaction. Bitterling exploit mussels by ovipositing into their gills. In turn, mussel larvae (glochidia) develop on the epidermis and gills of fish. Hosts have evolved behavioural responses to reduce parasite load, suggesting that glochidia and bitterling parasitism are costly. We examined the energetic cost of parasitism on both sides of this relationship. We used intermittent flow-through respirometry to measure (1) standard metabolic rate (SMR) of individual duck mussels Anodonta anatina (a common bitterling host) before and during infection by embryos of the European bitterling Rhodeus amarus, and (2) SMR and maximum oxygen uptake (MO2max) of individual R. amarus before and during infection with glochidia of the Chinese pond mussel Sinanodonta woodiana (a mussel species that successfully infects bitterling). As predicted, we observed an increase in mussel SMR when infected by bitterling embryos and an increased SMR in glochidia-infected bitterling, though this was significantly mediated by the time post-infection. Contrary to our predictions, glochidia infection did not impair MO2max and the number of glochidia attached to gills positively (rather than negatively) correlated with MO2max. The results suggest that tolerance is the prevailing coping mechanism for both fish and mussels when infected, while resistance mechanisms appear to be confined to the behavioural level.
KeywordsAcheilognathinae Coevolution Evolutionary arms race Host–parasite relationship Unionidae
This research was supported by Czech Science Foundation (19-5510S). We thank Carl Smith and two anonymous referees for their constructive comments.
Author contribution statement
CM, KD and MR conceived the study. CM performed the experimental work with the help of KD, CM analysed data and drafted the paper. All authors contributed to interpretation and writing.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Chang CH, Li F, Shao KT, Lin YS, Morosawa T, Kim S, Koo H, Kim W, Lee JS, He S, Smith C, Reichard M, Miya M, Sado T, Uehara K, Lavoué S, Chen WJ, Mayden RL (2014) Phylogenetic relationships of Acheilognathidae (Cypriniformes: Cyprinoidea) as revealed from evidence of both nuclear and mitochondrial gene sequence variation: Evidence for necessary taxonomic revision in the family and the identification of cryptic species. Mol Phylogenetics Evol 81:182–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Douda K, Liu H, Yu D, Rouchet R, Liu F, Tang QY, Methling C, Smith C, Reichard M (2017a) The role of local adaptation in shaping fish-mussel coevolution. Freshw Biol 62:1858–1868Google Scholar
- Filipsson K, Brijs J, Näslund J, Wengström N, Adamsson M, Závorka L, Österling EM, Höjesjö J (2017) Encystment of parasitic freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera) larvae coincides with increased metabolic rate and haematocrit in juvenile brown trout (Salmo trutta). Parasitol Res 116:1353–1360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kim YU, Park YS (1985) Egg development and larvae of the rose bitterling Rhodeus ocellatus. J Korean Fish Soc 18:586–593Google Scholar
- R Development Core Team (2017) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing Vienna Austria. http://www.r-project.org/
- 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
- Stadnichenko AP, Stadnichenko YA (1980) On the effect of bitterling larvae on the lamellibranchid mollusc Unio rostratus gentilis Haas. Gidrobiologicheskii Zhurnal 1:57–61Google Scholar