Acta Parasitologica

, Volume 59, Issue 1, pp 108–114 | Cite as

Parasites communities in the clingfish Gobiesox marmoratus from central Chile

  • Gabriela Muñoz
Original Paper


This study investigated the factors (i.e., season, locality, sampling year, total length and maturity stage of the hosts) that might influence the structure of parasite populations and communities in the clingfish Gobiesox marmoratus. The parasite community was described and analyzed using numerical descriptors, such as prevalence, intensity and species richness, between factors previously mentioned. A total of 260 clingfish were collected from 2 localities of central Chile, four seasons and during 3 year cycles (from July 2006 to July 2009). In the whole clingfish sample, 668 parasites were found, which belonged to 14 parasite taxa; 9 of them were new records in G. marmoratus. Parasite infracommunity richness ranged 0–3 species, although 1 trematode species, Helicometrina nimia, represented 80% of all parasites collected and was the most abundant and prevalent parasite species. The average of parasite abundance and intensity (± SD) was 2.5 ± 8.2 and 7.5 ± 12.7, respectively. Generalized linear model showed that parasite communities were influenced by season, locality, sampling year, and maturity stage when considering the abundance and intensity of parasites. For the parasite richness, only the locality and maturity of fish was determinant for explaining the differences. The populations and communities of the parasite variations were variable due to differences in fish body length because prevalence, abundance and intensity of parasites significantly correlated with the fish body length. Concordantly, maturity fish were longer than immature fish. Thus, clingfish from El Tabo were longest and mature, which harbored higher parasite richness than those fish from Las Cruces.


Parasite communities parasite populations intertidal zone Gobiesocidae clingfish Chile 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Belofastova I.P., Korniychuk J.M. 2000. New data about Acanthocephala from Black Sea fishes. Ekologiya Morya, 53, 54–58 (In Russian).Google Scholar
  2. Berrios V., Vargas M. 2004. Estructura trófica de la asociación de peces intermareales de la costa rocosa del norte de Chile. Revista de Biología Tropical, 52, 201–212.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bush A., Lafferty K., Lotz J., Shostak A. 1997. Parasitology meets ecology on its own terms: Margolis et al. revisited. Journal of Parasitology, 83, 575–583. DOI: 10.2307/3284227.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cancino J.M., Castilla J.C. 1988. Emersion behavior and foraging ecology of the common Chilean clingfish Sicyases sanguineus (Pisces: Gobiesocidae). Journal of Natural History, 22, 249–261. DOI: 10.1080/00222938800770191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chirichigno N. 1974. Clave para identificar a los peces marinos del Perú. Instituto del mar del Perú, Callao.Google Scholar
  6. Díaz P., Muñoz G. 2010. Diet and parasites of the insular fish Scartichthys variolatus (Blenniidae) from Robinson Crusoe Island, Chile: How different is this from two continental congeneric species? Revista de Biología Marina y Oceanografía, 45, 293–301. DOI: 10.4067/S0718-19572010000200011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dojiri M. 1989. Two species of Caligus (Copepoda: Siphonostomatoida) parasitic on fishes from Southern Africa. Natural History Museum, 23, 363–374. DOI: 10.1080/00222938900770231.Google Scholar
  8. Flores K., George-Nascimento M. 2009. Las infracomunidades de parásitos de dos especies de Scartichthys (Pisces: Blenniidae) en localidades cercanas del norte de Chile. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural, 82, 63–71. DOI: 10.4067/S0716-078X2009000100004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. González M.T., Henríquez V., López Z. 2013. Variations in the fecundity and body size of digenean species (Opecoelidae) parasitizing fishes from Northern Chile. Revista de Biología Marina y Oceanografía, 48, 421–430.Google Scholar
  10. Henríquez V., González M.T., Licandeo R., Carvajal J. 2011. Metazoan parasite communities of rock cod, Eleginops maclovinus, in the southern Chilean coast and their use as biological tags, in a local spatial scale. Journal of Fish Biology, 79, 1851–1865. DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8649.2011.03126.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hoye B.J., Fouchier R.A.M., Klaassen M. 2012. Host behaviour and physiology underpin individual variation in avian influenza virus infection in migratory Bewick’s swans. Proceedings of the Royal Society, B 279(1728), 529–534. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2011.0958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Iannacone J., Alvariño L. 2011. Aspectos cuantitativos de los parásitos del pejesapo Sicyases sanguineus (Müller & Troshel, 1843) (Perciformes: Gobiesocidae) de la zona costera de Chorrillos, Lima, Perú. Neotropical Helminthology, 5, 56–72.Google Scholar
  13. Kaltz O., Shykoff J.A. 1998. Local adaptation in host-parasite systems. Heredity, 81, 361–370. DOI:10.1046/j.1365-2540.1998.00435.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Korniychuk J.M., Gaevskaya A.V. 1999. Reproductive strategy of trematode, Helicometra fasciata (Trematoda: Opecoelidae) as an index of favourability of its environmen. Ekologiya Morya, 48, 42–47 (In Russian).Google Scholar
  15. Lo C.M., Morand S., Galzin R. 1998. Parasite diversity/host age and size relationship in three coral-reef fishes from French Polynesia. International Journal for Parasitology, 28, 1695–1708.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McEachran J.D. 2003. Gobiesocidae. In: (Ed. K. E. Carpenter) The living marine resources of the Western Central Atlantic. Volume III: Bony fishes, part 2 (Opistognathidae to Molidae), FAO species identification guide for fishery purposes and American Society of Ichthyologist and Herpetologists Special Publication No. 5. Rome: FAO, 1773–1774.Google Scholar
  17. Møller A.P., Rózsa L. 2005. Parasite biodiversity and the hosts defenses: chewing lice and immune response of their avian hosts. Oecologia, 142, 169–176. DOI: 10.1007/s00442-004-1735-8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Montú M. 1980. Parasite copepods of southern Brazilian fishes 1. Ergasilus euripedesi n. sp. (Copepoda, Cyclopidea). Iheringia Serie Zoologia, 56, 53–62.Google Scholar
  19. Muñoz A.A., Ojeda F.P. 1997. Feeding guild structure of a rocky intertidal fish assemblage in central Chile. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 49, 471–479. DOI: 10.1023/A:1007305426073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Muñoz A.A., Ojeda F.P. 1998. Guild structure of carnivorous intertidal fishes of the Chilean coast: implications of ontogenetic dietary shifts. Oecologia, 114, 563–573. DOI: 10.1007/s11284-004-0025-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Muñoz G., George-Nascimento M. 2002. Spiracanthus bovichthys n. gen. n. sp. (Acanthocephala: Arhythmacanthidae), a parasite of littoral fishes of the central south coast of Chile. Journal of Parasitology, 88, 141–145. DOI: 10.1645/0022-3395(2002)088[0141:SBNGNS]2.0.CO;2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Muñoz G., Cortés Y. 2009. Parasite communities of a fish assemblage from the intertidal rocky zone of central Chile: Similarity and host specificity between temporal and resident fish. Parasitology, 136, 1291–1303. DOI: 10.1017/S0031182009990758.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Muñoz G., Zamora L. 2011. Ontogenetic variation in parasite infracommunities of the clingfish Sicyases sanguineus (Pisces: Gobiesocidae). Journal of Parasitology, 91, 14–19. DOI: 10.1645/GE-2445.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Muñoz G., Delorme N. 2011. Variaciones temporales de las comunidades de parásitos de peces intermareales de Chile central: hospedadores residentes vs temporales. Revista de Biología Marina y Oceanografía, 46, 313–327. DOI: 10.4067/S0718-19572011000300003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Oliva M., Zegers L.J. 1988. Variaciones intraspecificas del adulto de Proctoeces lintoni Siddiqi & Cable, 1960 (Trematoda: Fellodistomidae) en hospedadores vertebrados e invertebrados. Studies on Neotropical Fauna and Environment, 23, 189–195. DOI: 10.1080/01650528809360760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pardo-Gandarillas M.C., Garcías F., George-Nascimento M. 2004. La dieta y fauna de endoparásitos del pejesapo Gobiesox marmoratus Jenyns, 1842 (Pisces: Gobiesocidae) en el litoral central de Chile están conectadas pero no correlacionadas. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural, 77, 627–637. DOI: 10.4067/S0716-078X2004000400006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pequeño G. 1989. Peces de Chile: Lista sistemática revisada y comentada. Revista de Biología Marina, 24, 1–132.Google Scholar
  28. Quijada P., Cáceres C. 2000. Patrones de abundancia, composición trófica y distribución espacial del ensamble de peces intermareales de la zona centro-sur de Chile. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural, 73, 739–747. DOI: 10.4067/S0716-078X2000000400016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Restif O., Hochberg M.E., Koella J.C. 2001. Virulence and age at reproduction: new insights into host-parasite coevolution. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 14, 967–979. DOI: 0.1046/j.1420-9101.2001.00355.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Salgado-Maldonado G. 2006. Checklist of helminth parasites of freshwater fishes from Mexico. Zootaxa, 1324, 1–357.Google Scholar
  31. Thomas E., Brown S.P., Sukhudeo M., Renaud F. 2002. Understanding parasite strategies: a state-dependent approach? Trends in Parasitology, 18, 387–390. DOI: 10.1016/S1471-4922(02)02339-5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wilmer P., Stone G., Johnston I. 2006. Environmental Physiology of Animals. 2nd ed. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, Ma. USA, 754 pp.Google Scholar
  33. Zar J.H. 1996. Biostatistical analysis, 2nd ed. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 718 pp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Versita Warsaw and Springer-Verlag Wien 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Facultad de Ciencias del Mar y de Recursos NaturalesUniversidad de ValparaísoReñaca, Viña del MarChile

Personalised recommendations