DOCSLIB.ORG

Biodiversity and Community Ecology of the Parasites of the Three-Spine Stickleback, Gasterosteus Aculeatus, in the Southern Gulf of St

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Biodiversity and Community Ecology of the Parasites of the Three-Spine Stickleback, Gasterosteus Aculeatus, in the Southern Gulf of St Biodiversity and community ecology of the parasites of the three-spine stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus, in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence by Jennifer C. Peddle B.Sc.H. A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF Masters of Science In the Graduate Academic Unit of Biology Supervisor: Kelly Munkittrick, PhD Dept of Biology, UNBSJ Examining Board: (name, degree, department/field), Chair (name, degree, department/field) This thesis is accepted _________________________ Dean of Graduate Studies THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW BRUNSWICK August, 2004 © Jennifer Peddle, 2004 ABSTRACT The three-spine stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus, is one of the most studied fishes found in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence (sGSL), but little is known about their parasites. This project was designed to create a biodiversity inventory of the macro- ectoparasites and endoparasites of three-spine sticklebacks, and to examine these parasites in terms of community ecology. Ectoparasite numbers were much lower than expected, and consisted primarily of Gyrodactylus sp.(prevalence 34.4%, 39 of 110 fish), Ergasilus sp. (17.2%, 19 of 110 fish), Thersitina gasterostei (0.08%, 9 of 110 fish) and cysts embedded in the gill. The endoparasites, consisted primarily of 12 species of Digenea; only 3 have previously been recorded from three-spine stickleback. Brachyphallus crenatus occurred in 82% of fish (74/90), Podocotyle angulata occurred in 38% of fish (19/50), and digenean ‘F’ a member of the Family Lecithasteridae (potentially Lecithaster gibbosus) occurred in only three estuaries with a maximum intensity of two. The nine digenea remaining are new host records and potential new area records for digenea found in three-spines. Other species were not widely distributed. Distributions of endoparasites could not be correlated with endoparasite numbers, and neither group correlated with environmental parameters or geographic distributions. The number of digeneans did correlate with human population size and the number of primary resource workers, suggesting that eutrophication and potentially fish plants contributed to higher levels of infection. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT .........................................................................................................ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..................................................................................... iii LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................. vii LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................... viii CHAPTER 1 1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.............................................................................. 1 1.1. Parasites as bioindicators in ecological assessment .......................... 1 1.2 Background to the present study ................................................................ 2 1.3 Study Area .................................................................................................. 3 1.3.1 Previous studies in this area .................................................................... 4 1.4 Statement of Problem ................................................................................. 6 1.5 Objectives and organization of thesis.......................................................... 6 1.5.1 Objectives ................................................................................................ 6 1.5.2 Hypotheses .............................................................................................. 7 1.5.3 Organization of the Thesis ....................................................................... 7 Chapter 2............................................................................................................ 8 Overview of the geographic distribution and biology of the host and parasites . 8 2.1 Geographic distribution of the three-spine stickleback................................ 8 2.2 Biology of the three-spine stickleback......................................................... 9 2.3 Major parasites being considered in this study ......................................... 10 2.3.1 Ectoparasites ......................................................................................... 13 iv 2.3.2 Endoparasites ........................................................................................ 16 2.3.3 Relevant Literature................................................................................. 21 Chapter 3...........................................................................................................24 Materials and Methods ......................................................................................24 3.1 Study sites ................................................................................................ 24 3.2 Sample Collection ..................................................................................... 27 3.3 Dissections and preservation .................................................................... 28 3.4 Staining and Mounting .............................................................................. 30 3.5 Parasite identification................................................................................ 34 3.6 Statistical analyses ................................................................................... 34 Chapter 4 36 Results ..............................................................................................................36 4.1 Biodiversity................................................................................................ 36 4.1.2 Ectoparasites ................................................................................ 36 4.1.2 Endoparasites ............................................................................... 44 4.2 Community Ecology .................................................................................. 70 4.2.1 Ectoparasites ......................................................................................... 70 4.2.2 Endoparasites ........................................................................................ 81 Chapter 5 90 Discussion .........................................................................................................90 5.1 Parasite fauna of the three-spine stickleback............................................ 91 5.1.1 Ectoparasites ......................................................................................... 91 5.1.2 Endoparasites ........................................................................................ 94 v 5.2 Community Ecology .................................................................................. 98 5.2.1 Ectoparasites ......................................................................................... 98 5.2.2 Endoparasites ........................................................................................ 99 5.2.3 Relationship to environmental factors...................................... 102 Chapter 6 107 Conclusion.......................................................................................................107 6.1 Biodiversity.............................................................................................. 107 6.1.1 Overall.............................................................................................. 107 6.1.2 DIVERSITAS data set.............................................................. 108 6.2 Community Ecology ................................................................................ 109 6.3 Environmental Status .......................................................................... 110 REFERENCES................................................................................................112 vi LIST OF TABLES Table 1 General life history characteristics of the different parasites discussed in this paper (Roberts and Janovy 1996, Hoffman 1999) * (See Figure 2) .........................................................................................................11 Table 2: Ectoparasite records found from the literature (Beverley-Burton 1984, Kabata 1988, Rafi 1988, Bousfield & Kabata 1988). 1 denotes that the parasite was found and 0 denotes no report. Abbreviations: AT=Atlantic Ocean, NL=Newfoundland and Labrador, NS=Nova Scotia, NB=New Brunswick, PEI=Prince Edward Island, QC=Quebec, ON=Ontairo, MN=Manitoba, BC=British Columbia, NT=North West Territories, YK=Yukon Territory, PC=Pacific Ocean, Mg=Monogenea, B=Branchiura, Cp=Copepoda..........................................................22 Table 3: Parasites from the literature of Gasterosteus aculeatus in Canada. 1 denotes that the parasite was found, 0 denotes no record. Provincial abbreviations as in Table 2, parasite abbreviations: D=Digenea, T=Cestoidea, A=Acanthocephala. ...................................................23 Table 4: Estuaries sampled, date of collection, GPS coordinates of each estuary, and average water temperature and salinity at the time of sampling.26 Table 5: Keys used for identification of parasites. ............................................34 Table 6: Taxonomic designations of ectoparasite types collected in the sGSL. 37 Table 7: Abundance of each parasite species in each estuary with the total number of each parasite species collected from the sGSL, the total number of parasites collected per estuary, the number of different parasites found at each site and the number of
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Study on Aquatic Biodiversity in the Lake Victoria Basin
    A Study on Aquatic Biodiversity in the Lake Victoria Basin EAST AFRICAN COMMUNITY LAKE VICTORIA BASIN COMMISSION A Study on Aquatic Biodiversity in the Lake Victoria Basin © Lake Victoria Basin Commission (LVBC) Lake Victoria Basin Commission P.O. Box 1510 Kisumu, Kenya African Centre for Technology Studies (ACTS) P.O. Box 459178-00100 Nairobi, Kenya Printed and bound in Kenya by: Eyedentity Ltd. P.O. Box 20760-00100 Nairobi, Kenya Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A Study on Aquatic Biodiversity in the Lake Victoria Basin, Kenya: ACTS Press, African Centre for Technology Studies, Lake Victoria Basin Commission, 2011 ISBN 9966-41153-4 This report cannot be reproduced in any form for commercial purposes. However, it can be reproduced and/or translated for educational use provided that the Lake Victoria Basin Commission (LVBC) is acknowledged as the original publisher and provided that a copy of the new version is received by Lake Victoria Basin Commission. TABLE OF CONTENTS Copyright i ACRONYMS iii FOREWORD v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vi 1. BACKGROUND 1 1.1. The Lake Victoria Basin and Its Aquatic Resources 1 1.2. The Lake Victoria Basin Commission 1 1.3. Justification for the Study 2 1.4. Previous efforts to develop Database on Lake Victoria 3 1.5. Global perspective of biodiversity 4 1.6. The Purpose, Objectives and Expected Outputs of the study 5 2. METHODOLOGY FOR ASSESSMENT OF BIODIVERSITY 5 2.1. Introduction 5 2.2. Data collection formats 7 2.3. Data Formats for Socio-Economic Values 10 2.5. Data Formats on Institutions and Experts 11 2.6.
    [Show full text]
  • FIELD GUIDE to WARMWATER FISH DISEASES in CENTRAL and EASTERN EUROPE, the CAUCASUS and CENTRAL ASIA Cover Photographs: Courtesy of Kálmán Molnár and Csaba Székely
    SEC/C1182 (En) FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular I SSN 2070-6065 FIELD GUIDE TO WARMWATER FISH DISEASES IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE, THE CAUCASUS AND CENTRAL ASIA Cover photographs: Courtesy of Kálmán Molnár and Csaba Székely. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular No. 1182 SEC/C1182 (En) FIELD GUIDE TO WARMWATER FISH DISEASES IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE, THE CAUCASUS AND CENTRAL ASIA By Kálmán Molnár1, Csaba Székely1 and Mária Láng2 1Institute for Veterinary Medical Research, Centre for Agricultural Research, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, Hungary 2 National Food Chain Safety Office – Veterinary Diagnostic Directorate, Budapest, Hungary FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS Ankara, 2019 Required citation: Molnár, K., Székely, C. and Láng, M. 2019. Field guide to the control of warmwater fish diseases in Central and Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular No.1182. Ankara, FAO. 124 pp. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO.
    [Show full text]
  • Review on Major Parasitic Crustacean in Fish Kidanie Misganaw and Addis Getu* Department of Animal Production and Extension, University of Gondar, P.O
    Aquacu nd ltu a r e s e J i o r u e r h n s a i Misganaw and Getu, Fish Aquac J 2016, 7:3 l F Fisheries and Aquaculture Journal ISSN: 2150-3508 DOI: 10.4172/2150-3508.1000175 Review Open Access Review on Major Parasitic Crustacean in Fish Kidanie Misganaw and Addis Getu* Department of Animal Production and Extension, University of Gondar, P.O. Box: 196, Gondar, Ethiopia *Corresponding author: Addis Getu, Faculty of Veterinary, Department of Animal Production and Extension, Medicine, University of Gondar, P.O. Box: 196, Gondar, Ethiopia, Tel: +251588119078, +251918651093; E-mail: [email protected] Received date: 04 December, 2014; Accepted date: 26 July, 2016; Published date: 02 August, 2016 Copyright: © 2016 Misganaw K, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Abstract In this paper the major description, epidemiology, pathogenesis and clinical sign, diagnosis, treatment and control of parasitic crustaceans in fish has been reviewed. The major crustaceans parasites commonly encountered in cultured and wild fish are: copepods (ergasilidea and lernaeidae), branchiura (argulidae) and isopods). Members of the branchiura and isopod are relatively large and both sexes are parasitic, while copepods are the most common crustacean parasites are generally small to microscopic with both free-living and parasitic stages in their life cycle. These parasitic crustaceans are numerous and have worldwide distribution in fresh, brackish and salt water. Most of them can be seen with naked eyes as they attach to the gills, bodies and fins of the host.
    [Show full text]
  • FIELD GUIDE to WARMWATER FISH DISEASES in CENTRAL and EASTERN EUROPE, the CAUCASUS and CENTRAL ASIA Cover Photographs: Courtesy of Kálmán Molnár and Csaba Székely
    SEC/C1182 (En) FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular I SSN 2070-6065 FIELD GUIDE TO WARMWATER FISH DISEASES IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE, THE CAUCASUS AND CENTRAL ASIA Cover photographs: Courtesy of Kálmán Molnár and Csaba Székely. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular No. 1182 SEC/C1182 (En) FIELD GUIDE TO WARMWATER FISH DISEASES IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE, THE CAUCASUS AND CENTRAL ASIA By Kálmán Molnár1, Csaba Székely1 and Mária Láng2 1Institute for Veterinary Medical Research, Centre for Agricultural Research, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, Hungary 2 National Food Chain Safety Office – Veterinary Diagnostic Directorate, Budapest, Hungary FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS Ankara, 2019 Required citation: Molnár, K., Székely, C. and Láng, M. 2019. Field guide to the control of warmwater fish diseases in Central and Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular No.1182. Ankara, FAO. 124 pp. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO.
    [Show full text]
  • Esox Lucius) Ecological Risk Screening Summary
    Northern Pike (Esox lucius) Ecological Risk Screening Summary U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, February 2019 Web Version, 8/26/2019 Photo: Ryan Hagerty/USFWS. Public Domain – Government Work. Available: https://digitalmedia.fws.gov/digital/collection/natdiglib/id/26990/rec/22. (February 1, 2019). 1 Native Range and Status in the United States Native Range From Froese and Pauly (2019a): “Circumpolar in fresh water. North America: Atlantic, Arctic, Pacific, Great Lakes, and Mississippi River basins from Labrador to Alaska and south to Pennsylvania and Nebraska, USA [Page and Burr 2011]. Eurasia: Caspian, Black, Baltic, White, Barents, Arctic, North and Aral Seas and Atlantic basins, southwest to Adour drainage; Mediterranean basin in Rhône drainage and northern Italy. Widely distributed in central Asia and Siberia easward [sic] to Anadyr drainage (Bering Sea basin). Historically absent from Iberian Peninsula, Mediterranean France, central Italy, southern and western Greece, eastern Adriatic basin, Iceland, western Norway and northern Scotland.” Froese and Pauly (2019a) list Esox lucius as native in Armenia, Azerbaijan, China, Georgia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Moldova, Monaco, 1 Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Ukraine, Canada, and the United States (including Alaska). From Froese and Pauly (2019a): “Occurs in Erqishi river and Ulungur lake [in China].” “Known from the Selenge drainage [in Mongolia] [Kottelat 2006].” “[In Turkey:] Known from the European Black Sea watersheds, Anatolian Black Sea watersheds, Central and Western Anatolian lake watersheds, and Gulf watersheds (Firat Nehri, Dicle Nehri).
    [Show full text]
  • Parasites and Their Freshwater Fish Host
    Bio-Research, 6(1): 328 – 338 328 Parasites and their Freshwater Fish Host Iyaji, F. O. and Eyo, J. E. Department of Zoology, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Enugu State, Nigeria Corresponding author: Eyo, J. E. Department of Zoology, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Enugu State, Nigeria. Email: [email protected] Phone: +234(0)8026212686 Abstract This study reviews the effects of parasites of fresh water fish hosts. Like other living organisms, fish harbour parasites either external or internal which cause a host of pathological debilities in them. The parasites live in close obligate association and derive benefits such as nutrition at the host’s expense, usually without killing the host. They utililize energy otherwise available for the hosts growth, sustenance, development, establishment and reproduction and as such may harm their hosts in a number of ways and affect fish production. The common parasites of fishes include the unicellular microparasites (viruses, bacteria, fungi and protozoans). The protozoans i.e. microsporidians and mixozoans are considered in this review. The multicellular macroparasites mainly comprised of the helminthes and arthropods are also highlighted. The effects of parasites on their fish hosts maybe exacerbated by different pollutants including heavy metals and hydrocarbons, organic enrichment of sediments by domestic sewage and others such as parasite life cycles and fish population size. Keywords: Parasites, Helminths, Protozoans, Microparasites, Macroparasites, Debilities, Freshwater fish Introduction the flagellates have direct life cycles and affect especially the pond reared fish populations. Several studies have revealed rich parasitic fauna Microsporidians are obligate intracellular parasites in freshwater fishes (Onyia, 1970; Kennedy et al., that require host tissues for reproduction (FAO, 1986; Ugwuzor, 1987; Onwuliri and Mgbemena, 1996).
    [Show full text]
  • Toxicity of Formalin for Fingerlings of Cyprinus Carpio Var. Koi and in Vitro
    J Parasit Dis (Jan-Mar 2019) 43(1):46–53 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12639-018-1056-1 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Toxicity of formalin for fingerlings of Cyprinus carpio var. koi and in vitro efficacy against Dactylogyrus minutus Kulwie`c, 1927 (Monogenea: Dactylogyridae) 1 2 1 Karen Roberta Tancredo • Nata´lia da Costa Marchiori • Scheila Anelise Pereira • Maurı´cio Laterc¸a Martins1 Received: 24 August 2018 / Accepted: 12 November 2018 / Published online: 14 December 2018 Ó Indian Society for Parasitology 2018 Abstract The toxicity of formalin on Cyprinus carpio var. Introduction koi and its anti-parasite effects against Dactylogyrus min- utus (Monogenea) in in vitro tests is analyzed. Specimens The koi carp Cyprinus carpio (Linnaeus, 1758) is an of D. minutus were submitted to eight concentrations of ornamental fish with high market demand due to its ease in formalin: 50, 75, 100, 125, 150, 175, 200, 250 mg L-1,in breeding and to its great variation in color patterns (Hus- triplicate. Concentrations of formalin 100, 150 and sain et al. 2014, 2015). It is a fast-growing species (Hashem 200 mg L-1 were then tested to determine the median et al. 1997) and very tolerant to variations in water quality lethal concentration of 50% of the fish per immersion bath. parameters and stocking density (Carneiro et al. 2015). Fish behavior was also observed during the first 6 h of However, its cultivation has been affected by ectoparasite exposure. The 200 mg L-1 concentration was the most Monogenea Dactylogyrus Diesing 1850, featuring 900 rapid efficacy for D. minutus, killing all parasites in species (Gibson et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Worms, Germs, and Other Symbionts from the Northern Gulf of Mexico CRCDU7M COPY Sea Grant Depositor
    h ' '' f MASGC-B-78-001 c. 3 A MARINE MALADIES? Worms, Germs, and Other Symbionts From the Northern Gulf of Mexico CRCDU7M COPY Sea Grant Depositor NATIONAL SEA GRANT DEPOSITORY \ PELL LIBRARY BUILDING URI NA8RAGANSETT BAY CAMPUS % NARRAGANSETT. Rl 02882 Robin M. Overstreet r ii MISSISSIPPI—ALABAMA SEA GRANT CONSORTIUM MASGP—78—021 MARINE MALADIES? Worms, Germs, and Other Symbionts From the Northern Gulf of Mexico by Robin M. Overstreet Gulf Coast Research Laboratory Ocean Springs, Mississippi 39564 This study was conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, Office of Sea Grant, under Grant No. 04-7-158-44017 and National Marine Fisheries Service, under PL 88-309, Project No. 2-262-R. TheMississippi-AlabamaSea Grant Consortium furnish ed all of the publication costs. The U.S. Government is authorized to produceand distribute reprints for governmental purposes notwithstanding any copyright notation that may appear hereon. Copyright© 1978by Mississippi-Alabama Sea Gram Consortium and R.M. Overstrect All rights reserved. No pari of this book may be reproduced in any manner without permission from the author. Primed by Blossman Printing, Inc.. Ocean Springs, Mississippi CONTENTS PREFACE 1 INTRODUCTION TO SYMBIOSIS 2 INVERTEBRATES AS HOSTS 5 THE AMERICAN OYSTER 5 Public Health Aspects 6 Dcrmo 7 Other Symbionts and Diseases 8 Shell-Burrowing Symbionts II Fouling Organisms and Predators 13 THE BLUE CRAB 15 Protozoans and Microbes 15 Mclazoans and their I lypeiparasites 18 Misiellaneous Microbes and Protozoans 25 PENAEID
    [Show full text]
  • Diseases of Cultured Warm-Water Marine Fish1
    Rapp. P.-v. Réun. Cons. int. Explor. Mer, 182: 44^48. 1983 Review of diseases of cultured warm-water marine fish1 Han Paperna H. Steinitz Marine Biologv Laboratory of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem P.O.B. 469, Eilat 88103, Israel minant etiological agents are strains of the opportunistic Introduction species, Vibrio alginolyticus (V. parahaemolyticus, ac­ There is an increasing awareness of the importance of cording to some authors, Bergey’s Manual, 8th Edition, diseases in the developing mariculture of the warm- 1974; Colorni et al., 1981). Pathological changes water fishes gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata), seabass observed in moribund fish with confirmed septicemia (Dicentrarchus labrax), and grey mullets (Mugil cepha- were of a non-specific type: edematous and hemor­ lus, Liza ramanda, and other Mugilidae). rhagic changes apparently resulting primarily from the The etiology, epizootology, and the process of mechanical injuries and stress reaction (Colorni et al., pathogenesis of diseases of fish in warm-water envi­ 1981). Vibrio spp. are also involved in chronic bacterial ronments may differ considerably from those experi­ infections. However, to date adequate diagnosis of the enced in fish cultured in cold-water environments, even bacterial strains taking part in such infections has not when the same fish species or same type of pathogen is been accomplished. Pathological changes observed in involved. Gilthead seabream, seabass, and mullets (and such chronic infections are either non-specific — re­ also warm-water freshwater fish such as Tilapia spp. and miniscent of the acute type (chronic vibriosis in mullets silver carp, Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) are very sus­ cultured in Spain, ACUIGROUP, 1979) - or are of a ceptible to handling injuries (Paperna et al., 1977, Be- more specific nature and confined to the particular jerano et al., 1979).
    [Show full text]
  • Parasites of the Common Carp Cyprinus Carpio L., 1758 (Teleostei: Cyprinidae) from Water Bodies of Turkey: Updated Checklist and Review for the 1964–2014 Period
    Turkish Journal of Zoology Turk J Zool (2015) 39: 545-554 http://journals.tubitak.gov.tr/zoology/ © TÜBİTAK Research Article doi:10.3906/zoo-1401-42 Parasites of the common carp Cyprinus carpio L., 1758 (Teleostei: Cyprinidae) from water bodies of Turkey: updated checklist and review for the 1964–2014 period 1, 1 2 Lorenzo VILIZZI *, Ali Serhan TARKAN , Fitnat Güler EKMEKÇİ 1 Faculty of Fisheries, Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University, Kötekli, Muğla, Turkey 2 Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey Received: 18.01.2014 Accepted/Published Online: 14.11.2014 Printed: 30.07.2015 Abstract: A synopsis is provided of the parasites of common carp Cyprinus carpio L. from water bodies of Turkey based on literature data from 1964 to 2014. In total, 45 studies were included in the review and these provided data from 41 water bodies, comprising 12 man-made reservoirs, 21 natural lakes, and 8 water courses. Forty-one different taxa (including molluscan Glochidium sp.) in total were recorded. Of these taxa, 2 had not been previously reviewed for Turkey, and 4 were excluded from the list because of dubious identification. The Turkish parasite fauna of common carp living under natural conditions was dominated by ciliates (Ciliophora) among the protozoans and by flatworms (Platyhelminthes) among the metazoans, and this was both in terms of occurrence on fish and across water bodies. The absence of 7 taxa from both the European and North American checklists can be explained by the location of Turkey at the frontier between Asia and Europe. Additionally, the parasite fauna of the common carp in Turkey was consistently different from that of the far eastern species’ specimens.
    [Show full text]
  • Fisheries Special/Management Report 08
    llBRARY INSTITUTE FOR F1s·--~~r.s ~ESEARCH University Museums Annex • Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 • ntoJUJol Ofr---- com mon DISEASES. PARASITES.AnD AnomALIES OF ffilCHIGAn FISHES ···········•·················································································••······ ..................................................................................................... Michigan Department Of Natural Resources Fisheries Division MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES INTEROFFICE COMMUNICATION Lake St. Clair Great Lakes Stati.on 33135 South River Road rt!:;..,I, R.. t-1 . Mt. Clemens, Michigan 48045 . ~ve -~Av •, ~ ··-··~ ,. ' . TO: "1>ave Weaver,. Regional Fisheries Program Manager> Region. III Ron Spitler,. Fisheries Biologist~ District 14 .... Ray ·shepherd, Fis~eries Biologis.t11t District 11 ; -~ FROM: Bob Baas, Biologise In Cbarge11t Lake St. Clair Great Lakes. Stati.ou SUBJECT: Impact of the red worm parasite on. Great Lakes yellow perch I recently receive4 an interim report from the State of Ohio on red worm infestation of yellow perch in Lake Erie. The report is very long and tedious so 1·want·to summarize ·for you ·souie of the information which I think is important. The description of the red worm parasite in our 1-IDNR. disease manual is largely.outdated by this work. First,. the Nematodes or round worms. locally called "red worms",. were positively identified as Eustrongylides tubifex. The genus Eustrongylides normally completes its life cycle in the proventiculus of fish-eating birds. E. tubifex was fed to domestic mallards and the red worms successfu11y matured but did not reach patentcy (females with obvtous egg development). Later lab examination of various wild aquatic birds collected on Lake Erie.showed that the red­ breasted merganser is the primary host for the adult worms. Next,. large numbers of perch were (and are still) being examined for rate of parasitism and its pot~ntial effects.
    [Show full text]
  • Trout (Oncorhynchus Mykiss)
    Acta vet. scand. 1995, 36, 299-318. A Checklist of Metazoan Parasites from Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) By K. Buchmann, A. Uldal and H. C. K. Lyholt Department of Veterinary Microbiology, Section of Fish Diseases, The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural Uni­ versity, Frederiksberg, Denmark. Buchmann, K., A. Uldal and H. Lyholt: A checklist of metazoan parasites from rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss. Acta vet. scand. 1995, 36, 299-318. - An extensive litera­ ture survey on metazoan parasites from rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss has been conducted. The taxa Monogenea, Cestoda, Digenea, Nematoda, Acanthocephala, Crustacea and Hirudinea are covered. A total of 169 taxonomic entities are recorded in rainbow trout worldwide although few of these may prove synonyms in future anal­ yses of the parasite specimens. These records include Monogenea (15), Cestoda (27), Digenea (37), Nematoda (39), Acanthocephala (23), Crustacea (17), Mollusca (6) and Hirudinea ( 5). The large number of parasites in this salmonid reflects its cosmopolitan distribution. helminths; Monogenea; Digenea; Cestoda; Acanthocephala; Nematoda; Hirudinea; Crustacea; Mollusca. Introduction kova (1992) and the present paper lists the re­ The importance of the rainbow trout Onco­ corded metazoan parasites from this host. rhynchus mykiss (Walbaum) in aquacultural In order to prevent a reference list being too enterprises has increased significantly during extensive, priority has been given to reports the last century. The annual total world pro­ compiling data for the appropriate geograph­ duction of this species has been estimated to ical regions or early records in a particular 271,478 metric tonnes in 1990 exceeding that area. Thus, a number of excellent papers on of Salmo salar (FAO 1991).
    [Show full text]