DOCSLIB.ORG

Final Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Final Report FINAL REPORT Improved fish health management for integrated inland aquaculture through Better Management Practices (BMPs) Tracey Bradley, Christina McCowan, Shari Cohen, Brett Ingram, Corey Green and Peter Mansell February 2014 FRDC Project No. 2010/036 © Fisheries Research and Development Corporation an Department of Environment and Primary Industries, 2014. All rights reserved. ISBN 978-1-74326-574-1 Improved fish health management for integrated inland aquaculture through Better Management Practices 2010-036 2014 Ownership of Intellectual property rights Unless otherwise noted, copyright (and any other intellectual property rights, if any) in this publication is owned by the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation and Department of Environment and Primary Industries This publication (and any information sourced from it) should be attributed to Bradley, T., McCowan, C., Cohen, S., Ingram, B., Green, C. and Mansell, P. 2014, Improved fish health management for integrated inland aquaculture through Better Management Practices , Department of Environment and Primary Industries, Melbourne, December. Creative Commons licence All material in this publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence, save for content supplied by third parties, logos and the Commonwealth Coat of Arms. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence is a standard form licence agreement that allows you to copy, distribute, transmit and adapt this publication provided you attribute the work. A summary of the licence terms is available from creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en. The full licence terms are available from creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/legalcode. Inquiries regarding the licence and any use of this document should be sent to: [email protected]. Disclaimer The authors do not warrant that the information in this document is free from errors or omissions. The authors do not accept any form of liability, be it contractual, tortious, or otherwise, for the contents of this document or for any consequences arising from its use or any reliance placed upon it. The information, opinions and advice contained in this document may not relate, or be relevant, to a readers particular circumstances. Opinions expressed by the authors are the individual opinions expressed by those persons and are not necessarily those of the publisher, research provider or the FRDC. The Fisheries Research and Development Corporation plans, invests in and manages fisheries research and development throughout Australia. It is a statutory authority within the portfolio of the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, jointly funded by the Australian Government and the fishing industry. Researcher Contact Details FRDC Contact Details Name: Tracey Bradley Address: 25 Geils Court Address: 475 Mickleham Rd, Attwood, Victoria, 3049 Deakin ACT 2600 Phone: 02 6285 0400 Phone: 03 9217 4171 Fax: 02 6285 0499 Fax: 03 9217 4322 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Web: www.frdc.com.au In submitting this report, the researcher has agreed to FRDC publishing this material in its edited form. 1 Contents Non-technical summary......................................................................................................................................... 5 Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................................................. 7 Abbreviations ......................................................................................................................................................... 7 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 8 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 10 Objectives ............................................................................................................................................................. 11 Methods ................................................................................................................................................................ 11 Histopathology study ....................................................................................................................................... 11 Farm Surveillance ........................................................................................................................................... 11 Farm census and farmer quiz .................................................................................................................. 11 Farm surveillance data ............................................................................................................................ 11 Toxicity trial ..................................................................................................................................................... 12 Results .................................................................................................................................................................. 13 Histopathology study ....................................................................................................................................... 13 Farm Surveillance ........................................................................................................................................... 20 Farm census ............................................................................................................................................ 20 Farmer quiz .............................................................................................................................................. 22 Farm surveillance data ............................................................................................................................ 22 Toxicity trial ..................................................................................................................................................... 32 Discussion ............................................................................................................................................................ 36 Histopathology study ....................................................................................................................................... 36 Bacteriology ............................................................................................................................................. 36 Histopathology and lesions ...................................................................................................................... 37 Farm Surveillance ........................................................................................................................................... 39 Farmer census ......................................................................................................................................... 39 Farmer quiz .............................................................................................................................................. 39 Farm surveillance data ............................................................................................................................ 40 Toxicity trial ..................................................................................................................................................... 41 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................... 42 Implications .......................................................................................................................................................... 43 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................... 43 Further development ........................................................................................................................................... 43 Extension and Adoption ...................................................................................................................................... 43 Project materials developed ............................................................................................................................... 45 Appendices ........................................................................................................................................................... 46 Staff................................................................................................................................................................. 46 Intellectual property......................................................................................................................................... 46 References...................................................................................................................................................... 46 Poster: What’s wrong with my Cod? .............................................................................................................. 49 Fact sheet: Chilodonella , a major parasite of Murray Cod ............................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Aquatic Microbial Ecology 62:139–152 (2011)
    The following supplement accompanies the article Airborne microeukaryote colonists in experimental water containers: diversity, succession, life histories and established food webs Savvas Genitsaris1, Maria Moustaka-Gouni1,*, Konstantinos A. Kormas2 1Department of Botany, School of Biology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 541 24 Thessaloniki, Greece 2Department of Ichthyology and Aquatic Environment, School of Agricultural Sciences, University of Thessaly, 384 46 Nea Ionia, Magnisia, Greece *Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] Aquatic Microbial Ecology 62:139–152 (2011) Supplement. Additional data Fig. S1. Clone library coverage based on Good’s C estimator of the eukaryotic 18S rDNA clone libraries from the water containers. The ratio observed phylotypes: predicted phylotypes (SChao1) was 0.7 in autumn, 0.87 in winter and 0.47 in spring. 2 Fig. S2. Phylogenetic tree of relationships of 18S rDNA (ca. 1600 bp) of the representative unique (grouped on ≥98% similarity) eukaryotic clones (in bold) found in the tap water containers, based on the neighbour-joining method as determined by distance Jukes–Cantor analysis. One thousand bootstrap analyses (distance) were conducted. GenBank numbers are shown in parentheses. Scale bar represents 2% estimated. 3 Table S1. Daily meteorological data in the city of Thessaloniki during the sampling periods of the study Air temperature (oC) Rainfall Sunshine RH Wind speed (mm) (min) (%) (m s-1) min max mean min max mean min max mean min max mean min max mean Autumn 2007 7.1 17.1 11.9 0 18.3 1.9 0 494.5 203.4 33.2 90.5 70.7 0.9 5.5 2.0 Winter 2007–8 –0.7 13.5 7.6 0 17.8 0.7 0 555.7 277.6 24.5 88.7 63.4 0.8 7.7 2.1 Spring 2008 8.5 16.9 13.0 0 34.7 1.9 0 663.7 363.7 36.8 91.0 66.8 1.2 3.6 1.8 Table S2.
    [Show full text]
  • Protozoologica
    Acta Protozool. (2014) 53: 207–213 http://www.eko.uj.edu.pl/ap ACTA doi:10.4467/16890027AP.14.017.1598 PROTOZOOLOGICA Broad Taxon Sampling of Ciliates Using Mitochondrial Small Subunit Ribosomal DNA Micah DUNTHORN1, Meaghan HALL2, Wilhelm FOISSNER3, Thorsten STOECK1 and Laura A. KATZ2,4 1Department of Ecology, University of Kaiserslautern, 67663 Kaiserslautern, Germany; 2Department of Biological Sciences, Smith College, Northampton, MA 01063, USA; 3FB Organismische Biologie, Universität Salzburg, A-5020 Salzburg, Austria; 4Program in Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003, USA Abstract. Mitochondrial SSU-rDNA has been used recently to infer phylogenetic relationships among a few ciliates. Here, this locus is compared with nuclear SSU-rDNA for uncovering the deepest nodes in the ciliate tree of life using broad taxon sampling. Nuclear and mitochondrial SSU-rDNA reveal the same relationships for nodes well-supported in previously-published nuclear SSU-rDNA studies, al- though support for many nodes in the mitochondrial SSU-rDNA tree are low. Mitochondrial SSU-rDNA infers a monophyletic Colpodea with high node support only from Bayesian inference, and in the concatenated tree (nuclear plus mitochondrial SSU-rDNA) monophyly of the Colpodea is supported with moderate to high node support from maximum likelihood and Bayesian inference. In the monophyletic Phyllopharyngea, the Suctoria is inferred to be sister to the Cyrtophora in the mitochondrial, nuclear, and concatenated SSU-rDNA trees with moderate to high node support from maximum likelihood and Bayesian inference. Together these data point to the power of adding mitochondrial SSU-rDNA as a standard locus for ciliate molecular phylogenetic inferences.
    [Show full text]
  • Diseases of Opakapaka
    Opakapaka Diseases of Opakapaka Hawai'i Institute of Marine Biology Michael L. Kent1, Jerry R. Heidel2, Amarisa Marie3, Aaron Moriwake4, Virginia Moriwake4, Benjamin Alexander4, Virginia Watral1, Christopher D. Kelley5 1Center for Fish Disease Research, http://www.oregonstate.edu/dept/salmon/, Department of Microbiology, 220 Nash Hall, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331 2Director, Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, College of Veterinary Medicine, Oregon State University Corvallis, OR 97331-3804 3Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331 4Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology, http://www.hawaii.edu/HIMB/, 46-007 Lilipuna Road, Kaneohe, HI 96744 5Hawaii Undersea Research Laboratory University of Hawaii, 1000 Pope Rd, MSB 303 Honolulu, HI 96744 Introduction Opakapaka (Pristipomoides filamentosus), a highly valued commercial deep-water snapper is under investigation at the University of Hawaii through support of Department of Land and Natural Resources. The purpose of this endeavor is to develop aquaculture methods for enhancement of wild stocks of this fish and related species (e.g., ehu, onaga) as well as development of this species of commercial aquaculture. The usual scenario for investigations or identification of serious diseases in aquaculture is that as the culture of a fish species expands, devastating economic and biological losses due to "new" or "unknown" diseases follow, and then research is conducted to identify their cause and develop methods for their control. In contrast, the purpose of this study was to provide a proactive approach to identify potential health problems that may be encountered in opakapaka before large-scale culture of this species is underway. A few diseases have already been recognized as potential problems for the culture of captive opakapaka.
    [Show full text]
  • D070p001.Pdf
    DISEASES OF AQUATIC ORGANISMS Vol. 70: 1–36, 2006 Published June 12 Dis Aquat Org OPENPEN ACCESSCCESS FEATURE ARTICLE: REVIEW Guide to the identification of fish protozoan and metazoan parasites in stained tissue sections D. W. Bruno1,*, B. Nowak2, D. G. Elliott3 1FRS Marine Laboratory, PO Box 101, 375 Victoria Road, Aberdeen AB11 9DB, UK 2School of Aquaculture, Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute, CRC Aquafin, University of Tasmania, Locked Bag 1370, Launceston, Tasmania 7250, Australia 3Western Fisheries Research Center, US Geological Survey/Biological Resources Discipline, 6505 N.E. 65th Street, Seattle, Washington 98115, USA ABSTRACT: The identification of protozoan and metazoan parasites is traditionally carried out using a series of classical keys based upon the morphology of the whole organism. However, in stained tis- sue sections prepared for light microscopy, taxonomic features will be missing, thus making parasite identification difficult. This work highlights the characteristic features of representative parasites in tissue sections to aid identification. The parasite examples discussed are derived from species af- fecting finfish, and predominantly include parasites associated with disease or those commonly observed as incidental findings in disease diagnostic cases. Emphasis is on protozoan and small metazoan parasites (such as Myxosporidia) because these are the organisms most likely to be missed or mis-diagnosed during gross examination. Figures are presented in colour to assist biologists and veterinarians who are required to assess host/parasite interactions by light microscopy. KEY WORDS: Identification · Light microscopy · Metazoa · Protozoa · Staining · Tissue sections Resale or republication not permitted without written consent of the publisher INTRODUCTION identifying the type of epithelial cells that compose the intestine.
    [Show full text]
  • Detachment and Motility of Surface-Associated Ciliates at Increased Flow Velocities
    Vol. 55: 209–218, 2009 AQUATIC MICROBIAL ECOLOGY Printed June 2009 doi: 10.3354/ame01302 Aquat Microb Ecol Published online May 6, 2009 Detachment and motility of surface-associated ciliates at increased flow velocities Ute Risse-Buhl1, 2,*, Anja Scherwass 2, Annette Schlüssel2, Hartmut Arndt2, Sandra Kröwer1, Kirsten Küsel1 1Limnology Research Group, Institute of Ecology, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Dornburger Strasse 159, 07743 Jena, Germany 2Department of General Ecology and Limnology, Zoological Institute, University of Cologne, 50931 Cologne, Germany ABSTRACT: Though seldom investigated, the microcurrent environment may form a significant part of the ecological niche of protists in stream biofilms. We investigated whether specific morphological features and feeding modes of ciliates are advantageous for a delayed detachment at increased flow velocities. Three sessile filter feeders (Vorticella, Carchesium and Campanella spp.), 6 vagile filter feeders (Aspidisca, Euplotes, Holosticha, Stylonychia, Cinetochilum and Cyclidium spp.) and 2 vagile gulper feeders (Chilodonella and Litonotus spp.) were studied. A rotating disk on top of the culture medium generated different flow velocities in Petri dishes. All tested sessile species stayed attached at the fastest investigated flow velocity (4100 µm s–1). Vorticella convallaria (Peritrichia) remained about 45% of the observed time in a contracted state at >2600 µm s–1. Hence, filtration activity of ses- sile ciliates seemed to be inhibited at high flow velocities. Among the vagile filter feeders, flattened species which extended more than 60 µm into the water column and round species showed the low- est resistance to high flow velocities. Only the vagile flattened gulper feeder Chilodonella uncinata (Phyllopharyngia) withstood flow velocities ≥2600 µm s–1.
    [Show full text]
  • Chilodonella Uncinata – As Potential Protozoan Biopesticide for Mosquito Vectors of Human Diseases
    ACTA SCIENTIFIC MICROBIOLOGY (ISSN: 2581-3226) Volume 2 Issue 12 December 2019 Review Article Chilodonella uncinata – As Potential Protozoan Biopesticide for Mosquito Vectors of Human Diseases Bina Pani Das1,2* 1Former Joint Director, National Centre for Disease Control (NCDC), India, 2Former Principal Investigator, DST Project, Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI), University, India *Corresponding Author: Bina Pani Das, Former Joint Director, National Centre for Disease Control (NCDC), India, Former Principal Investigator, DST Project, Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI), University, India. Received: October 28, 2019; Published: November 11, 2019 DOI: 10.31080/ASMI.2019.02.0435 Abstract Use of microbial control agents provide alternative method to synthetic pesticide for adequate insect management. Naturally occurring microorganisms such as viruses, bacteria, fungi and protozoa are used as biopesticides. Earlier studies revealed among entomopathogenic protozoa two ciliates, viz.: Lambornella clarki and Chilodonella uncinata are known with many biological control properties. This article addresses the current status of development of Ch uncinata sand formulation which is available in dormant stage in easy formulation and packed in sachet as “infusion bag” (easy to store, transport and treat with shelf life >18 months) to be used as potential biopesticide for mosquito vector of human diseases. During the process there were many questions like: (1) Ch uncinata culture should not be kept in refrigerator. But formulation prepared using the same culture tolerant to extreme cool weather. Reason: Ch uncinata has 4 stages in life cycle of which Trophont, the free living infective stage (in culture) is sensitive to cold; Cyst, the dormant stage (in the formulation) is tolerant to extreme cold Ch uncinata (trophont stage) has a chlorophyll particle in its body.
    [Show full text]
  • Genome Analyses of the New Model Protist Euplotes Vannus Focusing on Genome Rearrangement and Resistance to Environmental Stressors
    Received: 16 January 2019 | Revised: 5 April 2019 | Accepted: 8 April 2019 DOI: 10.1111/1755-0998.13023 RESOURCE ARTICLE Genome analyses of the new model protist Euplotes vannus focusing on genome rearrangement and resistance to environmental stressors Xiao Chen1,2 | Yaohan Jiang1 | Feng Gao1,3 | Weibo Zheng1 | Timothy J. Krock4 | Naomi A. Stover5 | Chao Lu2 | Laura A. Katz6 | Weibo Song1,7 1Institute of Evolution & Marine Biodiversity, Ocean University of China, Qingdao, China 2Department of Genetics and Development, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York 3Key Laboratory of Mariculture (Ministry of Education), Ocean University of China, Qingdao, China 4Department of Computer Science and Information Systems, Bradley University, Peoria, Illinois 5Department of Biology, Bradley University, Peoria, Illinois 6Department of Biological Sciences, Smith College, Northampton, Massachusetts 7Laboratory for Marine Biology and Biotechnology, Qingdao National Laboratory for Marine Science and Technology, Qingdao, China Correspondence Feng Gao, Institute of Evolution & Marine Abstract Biodiversity, Ocean University of China, As a model organism for studies of cell and environmental biology, the free-living Qingdao, China. Email: [email protected] and cosmopolitan ciliate Euplotes vannus shows intriguing features like dual genome architecture (i.e., separate germline and somatic nuclei in each cell/organism), “gene- Funding information Marine S&T Fund of Shandong Province sized” chromosomes, stop codon reassignment, programmed ribosomal
    [Show full text]
  • Addendum A: Antiparasitic Drugs Used for Animals
    Addendum A: Antiparasitic Drugs Used for Animals Each product can only be used according to dosages and descriptions given on the leaflet within each package. Table A.1 Selection of drugs against protozoan diseases of dogs and cats (these compounds are not approved in all countries but are often available by import) Dosage (mg/kg Parasites Active compound body weight) Application Isospora species Toltrazuril D: 10.00 1Â per day for 4–5 d; p.o. Toxoplasma gondii Clindamycin D: 12.5 Every 12 h for 2–4 (acute infection) C: 12.5–25 weeks; o. Every 12 h for 2–4 weeks; o. Neospora Clindamycin D: 12.5 2Â per d for 4–8 sp. (systemic + Sulfadiazine/ weeks; o. infection) Trimethoprim Giardia species Fenbendazol D/C: 50.0 1Â per day for 3–5 days; o. Babesia species Imidocarb D: 3–6 Possibly repeat after 12–24 h; s.c. Leishmania species Allopurinol D: 20.0 1Â per day for months up to years; o. Hepatozoon species Imidocarb (I) D: 5.0 (I) + 5.0 (I) 2Â in intervals of + Doxycycline (D) (D) 2 weeks; s.c. plus (D) 2Â per day on 7 days; o. C cat, D dog, d day, kg kilogram, mg milligram, o. orally, s.c. subcutaneously Table A.2 Selection of drugs against nematodes of dogs and cats (unfortunately not effective against a broad spectrum of parasites) Active compounds Trade names Dosage (mg/kg body weight) Application ® Fenbendazole Panacur D: 50.0 for 3 d o. C: 50.0 for 3 d Flubendazole Flubenol® D: 22.0 for 3 d o.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded from Using the Burrows Wheeler Aligner (BWA) Algorithm V0.7.13 (Andrews, 2010; Li and Durbin, 2009)
    The functional diversity and evolution of nuclear processes by Nicholas A. T. Irwin BSc. Hons, University of British Columbia, 2017 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in The Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies (Botany) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) September 2020 © Nicholas A. T. Irwin, 2020 The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies for acceptance, the dissertation entitled: The functional diversity and evolution of nuclear processes submitted by Nicholas A. T. Irwin in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Botany Examining Committee: Dr. Patrick J. Keeling, Professor, Department of Botany, UBC Supervisor Dr. LeAnn J. Howe, Professor, Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, UBC Supervisory Committee Member Dr. Brian S. Leander, Professor, Department of Zoology and Botany, UBC Supervisory Committee Member Dr. Ivan Sadowski, Professor, Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, UBC University Examiner Dr. James D. Berger, Professor Emeritus, Department of Zoology, UBC University Examiner Dr. Joel B. Dacks, Professor, Department of Medicine, University of Alberta External Examiner ii Abstract The nucleus is a defining characteristic of eukaryotic cells which not only houses the genome but a myriad of processes that function synergistically to regulate cellular activity. Nuclear proteins are key in facilitating core eukaryotic processes such as genome compaction, nucleocytoplasmic exchange, and DNA replication, but the interconnectedness of these processes makes them challenging to dissect mechanistically. Moreover, the antiquity of the nucleus complicates evolutionary analyses, limiting our view of nuclear evolution.
    [Show full text]
  • Redalyc.Studies on Coccidian Oocysts (Apicomplexa: Eucoccidiorida)
    Revista Brasileira de Parasitologia Veterinária ISSN: 0103-846X [email protected] Colégio Brasileiro de Parasitologia Veterinária Brasil Pereira Berto, Bruno; McIntosh, Douglas; Gomes Lopes, Carlos Wilson Studies on coccidian oocysts (Apicomplexa: Eucoccidiorida) Revista Brasileira de Parasitologia Veterinária, vol. 23, núm. 1, enero-marzo, 2014, pp. 1- 15 Colégio Brasileiro de Parasitologia Veterinária Jaboticabal, Brasil Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=397841491001 How to cite Complete issue Scientific Information System More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal Journal's homepage in redalyc.org Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative Review Article Braz. J. Vet. Parasitol., Jaboticabal, v. 23, n. 1, p. 1-15, Jan-Mar 2014 ISSN 0103-846X (Print) / ISSN 1984-2961 (Electronic) Studies on coccidian oocysts (Apicomplexa: Eucoccidiorida) Estudos sobre oocistos de coccídios (Apicomplexa: Eucoccidiorida) Bruno Pereira Berto1*; Douglas McIntosh2; Carlos Wilson Gomes Lopes2 1Departamento de Biologia Animal, Instituto de Biologia, Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro – UFRRJ, Seropédica, RJ, Brasil 2Departamento de Parasitologia Animal, Instituto de Veterinária, Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro – UFRRJ, Seropédica, RJ, Brasil Received January 27, 2014 Accepted March 10, 2014 Abstract The oocysts of the coccidia are robust structures, frequently isolated from the feces or urine of their hosts, which provide resistance to mechanical damage and allow the parasites to survive and remain infective for prolonged periods. The diagnosis of coccidiosis, species description and systematics, are all dependent upon characterization of the oocyst. Therefore, this review aimed to the provide a critical overview of the methodologies, advantages and limitations of the currently available morphological, morphometrical and molecular biology based approaches that may be utilized for characterization of these important structures.
    [Show full text]
  • Mesodinium Pulex MP 0004563695.P1
    Pseudocohnilembus persalinus KRX05445.1 Ichthyophthirius multifillis XP_004037375.1 Tetrahymena thermophila XP_001018842.1 Cryptocaryon irritans k141_54336.p1 Pseudocohnilembus persalinus KRX05059.1 Tetrahymena thermophila XP_001017094.3 Ichthyophthirius multifillis XP_004029899.1 Nassula variabilis k141_18808.p1 Cparvum_a_EAK89612.1 Paramecium tetraurelia XP_001437839.1 Paramecium tetraurelia XP_001436783.1 Paramecium tetraurelia XP_001426816.1 Paramecium tetraurelia XP_001428490.1 Colpoda aspera k119_31549.p1 Aristerostoma sp. MMETSP0125-20121206_1718_1 Aristerostoma sp. MMETSP0125-20121206_9427_1 Pseudomicrothorax dubius k141_16595.p1 Furgasonia blochmanni k141_76537.p1 Nassula variabilis k141_25953.p1 Protocruzia adherens MMETSP0216-20121206_9085_1 Heterocapsa artica_d_MMETSP1441-20131203_3016_1 Cryptocaryon irritans k141_19128.p1 Balantidium ctenopharyngodoni k141_68816.p2 Afumigatus_XP_754687.1 Panserina_f_CAP64624.1 Afumigatus_XP_755116.1 Panserina_f_CAP61434.1 Euplotes focardii MMETSP0206-20130828_15472_1 Pseuodokeronopsis sp. MMETSP1396-20130829_12823_1 Heterosigma akashiwo-CCMP2393-20130911_268255_1 Hakashiwo2_s_Heterosigma-akashiwo-CCMP452-20130912_5774_1 Phytophthora infestans_s_EEY69906.1 Mantarctica_v_MMETSP1106-20121128_20623_1 Mantarctica_v_MMETSP1106-20121128_10198_1 Mantarctica_v_MMETSP1106-20121128_26613_1 Mantoniella_v_MMETSP1468-20131203_2761_1 Dunaliella tertiolecta_v_CCMP1320-20130909_4048_1 Tetraselmis_v_MMETSP0419_2-20121207_8020_1 Tastigmatica_v_MMETSP0804-20121206_11479_1 Tetraselmis chui_v_MMETSP0491_2-20121128_10468_1
    [Show full text]
  • Carp Coccidiosis: Longevity and Transmission of Goussia Carpelli (Apicomplexa: Coccidia) in the Pond Environment
    FOLIA PARASITOLOGICA 45: 326-328, 1998 CARP COCCIDIOSIS: LONGEVITY AND TRANSMISSION OF GOUSSIA CARPELLI (APICOMPLEXA: COCCIDIA) IN THE POND ENVIRONMENT Dieter Steinhagen and Katharina Hespe School of Veterinary Medicine, Fish Diseases Research Unit, Bünteweg 17, 30559 Hannover, Germany Pond populations of common carp (Cyprinus carpio L.) Antychowicz, Panczyk 1976, op. cit.). In the pond environ- and goldfish (Carassius auratus L.) often harbour infections ment, 11-day-old carp fry were already infected with the with the gut dwelling coccidian parasite Goussia carpelli parasite and released oocysts 12 days later (Zaika and Kheisin (Léger et Stankovitch, 1921) (Lom J. and Dyková I. 1992: 1959, op. cit.). How under hatchery conditions the infection is Protozoan Parasites of Fishes. Developments in Aquaculture perpetuated and the actual role of the invertebrate paratenic and Fisheries Science, Vol 26. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The host, however, remained unclear. The immediate infection of Netherlands, 315 pp.). In carp hatcheries, this parasite is carp fry with the parasite and the high prevalence of the widespread in fish from all age classes. While 2- and 3-year- infestation indicate that the rearing ponds must be old carp and spawners release very few oocysts only, the contaminated with high numbers of infective stages. In the coccidia-infection is most prevalent in carp fry from July to European carp hatcheries, fish spawn in special ponds and September. During this time, about 80 to 100% of the carp fry spawners are removed from the fry a few days after egg were infected and had high numbers of oocysts in the mucosa deposition (Barthelmes D.
    [Show full text]