Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T17:24:53.127Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A century of parasitology in fisheries and aquaculture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 January 2023

J.T. Timi*
Affiliation:
Laboratorio de Ictioparasitología, Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas y Costeras (IIMyC), Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata- Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), Funes 3350, (7600) Mar del Plata, Argentina
K. Buchmann
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Aquatic Pathobiology, Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg C., Denmark
*
Author for correspondence: J. T. Timi, E-mail: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Fish parasitological research associated with fisheries and aquaculture has expanded remarkably over the past century. The application of parasites as biological tags has been one of the fields in which fish parasitology has generated new insight into fish migration and stock assessments worldwide. It is a well-established discipline whose methodological issues are regularly reviewed and updated. Therefore, no concepts or case-studies will be repeated here; instead, we summarize some of the main recent findings and achievements of this methodology. These include the extension of its use in hosts other than bony fishes; the improvements in the selection of parasite tags; the recognition of the host traits affecting the use of parasite tags; and the increasingly recognized need for integrative, multidisciplinary studies combining parasites with classical methods and modern techniques, such as otolith microchemistry and genetics. Archaeological evidence points to the existence of parasitic problems associated with aquaculture activities more than a thousand years ago. However, the main surge of research within aquaculture parasitology occurred with the impressive development of aquaculture over the past century. Protozoan and metazoan parasites, causing disease in domesticated fish in confined environments, have attracted the interest of parasitologists and, due to their economic importance, funding was made available for basic and applied research. This has resulted in a profusion of basic knowledge about parasite biology, physiology, parasite–host interactions, life cycles and biochemistry. Due to the need for effective control methods, various solutions targeting host–parasite interactions (immune responses and host finding), genetics and pharmacological aspects have been in focus.

Type
Centenary Review
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (Reference Fioravanti, Gustinelli, Rigos, Buchmann, Caffara, Pascual and Pardo2022), fisheries and aquaculture – whose production totalled 214 million tonnes in 2020 – will play an increasingly important role in providing food and nutrition to a growing world population in the future. Recent Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations statistics show significant increases in the consumption of aquatic foods worldwide. As aquaculture is a prominent actor in this growth, we must face the challenge and secure sustainability in future developments. On the other hand, fishery resources are continuing to decline due to overfishing, pollution, inadequate management and other factors, although the number of landings of biologically sustainable stocks is rising. Therefore, the expansion of the paramount contribution of fisheries and aquaculture to global food security and nutrition will require ‘transformative changes in policy, management, innovation, and investment to achieve sustainable, inclusive and equitable global fisheries and aquaculture’ (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Reference Fioravanti, Gustinelli, Rigos, Buchmann, Caffara, Pascual and Pardo2022).

Parasites in fish represent a high diversity of taxa, are ubiquitous components of biological systems and establish obligate interactions with their hosts. They affect the physiology, morphology, reproduction and behaviour of their hosts, and their presence illustrates the host distribution and population structure (Cantatore & Timi, Reference Cantatore and Timi2015). Therefore, these factors may play a prominent role in the changes needed in the near future for aquaculture and fisheries. These roles, as played over the past century, are reviewed and updated in this review.

When the Journal of Helminthology was launched a century ago, fish parasitology was a growing field, but had a predominantly descriptive perspective (i.e. Hesse, Reference Hesse1923; Khalil, Reference Khalil1923; Kobayashi, Reference Kobayashi1923). Yet its relationship to fisheries and aquaculture remained minor or unexplored. At present, parasitism is increasingly recognized as having significant impacts on host individuals, populations, communities and even ecosystems resulting from the tight host–parasite reciprocal adaptations that allow parasites to exploit the specific biological features of their hosts to ensure their transmission and survival and the maintenance of viable populations (Timi & Poulin, Reference Timi and Poulin2020). These characteristics make parasites suitable tools as biological markers to provide information on the diet, movements, population and stock structure of their hosts (Williams et al., Reference Williams, MacKenzie and McCarthy1992; MacKenzie & Abaunza, Reference MacKenzie, Abaunza, Cadrin, Kerr and Mariani2014), a methodology increasingly applicable to fishery management and monitoring (Timi & MacKenzie, Reference Timi and Mackenzie2015; Pita et al., Reference Pita, Casey and Hawkins2016). The historic development of the use of parasites’ tags in fish stock studies, as well as its limitations, benefits, advantages and disadvantages have been comprehensively reviewed in many articles, especially recently (Timi & MacKenzie, Reference Timi and Mackenzie2015; Pascual et al., Reference Pascual, Abollo and González2016). Thus, only recent advances will be discussed here, along with the value of parasite genetics in assessing the host population structure and as indicators of the success of protective measures to restore or preserve aquatic resources. The past century has also presented strong scientific evidence that fish parasites in wild fish stocks challenge fish quality (Mohamed et al., Reference Mohamed, Zuo, Karami, Marnis, Setyawan, Mehrdana, Kirkeby, Kania and Buchmann2020) and may constitute a human health hazard (Strøm et al., Reference Strøm, Haarder, Korbut, Mejer, Thamsborg, Kania and Buchmann2015; Nordholm et al., Reference Nordholm, Kurtzhals, Karami, Kania and Buchmann2020). The occurrence of zoonotic nematodes (Mattiucci et al., Reference Mattiucci, Abaunza, Ramadori and Nascetti2004, Reference Mattiucci, Giulietti and Paoletti2018; Buchmann & Mehrdana, Reference Buchmann and Mehrdana2016; Gay et al., Reference Gay, Bao and MacKenzie2018) and trematodes (Skov et al., Reference Skov, Kania, Dalsgaard, Jørgensen and Buchmann2009; Madsen et al., Reference Madsen, Nguyen, Lanza and Stauffer2022) poses a major problem for the fish processing industry, as the removal of worms before they reach the consumer is labour-intensive and undermines profitability. However, the medical importance and influence on human health will not be discussed further in this work. In contrast, the impact of parasites on fish health in aquaculture will be mentioned, due to the potentially pathogenic effect of many parasite taxa. Protozoans, myxozoans, monogeneans, cestodes, digeneans and crustacean parasites have a major impact on global finfish and shellfish aquaculture and constitute a key constraint to production, sustainability and economic viability (Shinn et al., Reference Shinn, Pratoomyot, Bron, Paladini, Brooker and Brooker2015). Selected problem parasites, which have attracted special attention in the aquaculture industry over the past century, will be treated and discussed in the following sections. Therefore, in this review, our aim is to synthesize the major developments and trends in parasitological research on fisheries and aquaculture carried out over the past century.

Parasites in fisheries

Parasites as natural tags in fisheries, an update

One of the most frequent overlaps between fishery and parasitology is the use of parasite tags for identifying the population structure or stock composition of exploited resources. This science may contribute significantly to fish biology, considering that only about 25% of the global catch currently comes from numerically assessed stocks (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Reference Ferrer-Castelló, Raga and Aznar2020). Fisheries lacking formal assessment account for more than 80% of the global catch (Costello et al., Reference Costello, Ovando, Hilborn, Gaines, Deschenes and Lester2012), which indicates an increasing need for alternative and complementary methods of detailed stock assessment as a prerequisite for rebuilding plans and effective management of most resources.

At present, parasite tags are one of the variety of approaches used to identify and classify stocks, which also include catch data, life-history characteristics, mark–recapture, otolith microchemistry, morphology and genetics (Begg & Waldman, Reference Begg and Waldman1999; Cadrin et al., Reference Cadrin, Friedland and Waldman2005). A growing number of studies use parasites as indicators (Timi & MacKenzie, Reference Timi and Mackenzie2015), as they may identify variations and differentiating parameters of parasite populations and communities.

Nearly a century has passed since Herrington et al. (Reference Herrington, Bearse and Firth1939) used parasites to investigate the stock structure of a marine fish for the first time. Since then, the use of parasite biological approaches has become a reliable, well-established subdiscipline of parasitology (Poulin & Kamiya, Reference Poulin and Kamiya2015) that has deserved the publication of two special issues of specialized journals devoted to the subject (Lewis, Reference Lewis2007; Timi & MacKenzie, Reference Timi and Mackenzie2015).

At present there is a consensus on a series of methodological guidelines, which are periodically reviewed and adjusted, although with a variable degree of application at global scale (Timi & MacKenzie, Reference Timi and Mackenzie2015). These reviews discuss and update the criteria for the selection of suitable tags, their advantages and disadvantages, the biological target systems and the perspectives of the study (population structure, migrations and recruitment) for different groups of parasites’ geographical regions (Kabata, Reference Kabata1963; Sindermann, Reference Sindermann1983; MacKenzie, Reference MacKenzie1983, Reference MacKenzie1987, Reference MacKenzie1993, Reference MacKenzie1999, Reference MacKenzie2002; Lester, Reference Lester1990; Moser, Reference Moser1991; Williams et al., Reference Williams, MacKenzie and McCarthy1992; MacKenzie & Abaunza, Reference MacKenzie and Abaunza1998, Reference MacKenzie, Abaunza, Cadrin, Kerr and Mariani2014; Mosquera et al., Reference Mosquera, De Castro and Gómez-Gesteira2003; Timi, Reference Timi2007; Abaunza et al., Reference Abaunza, Murta and Campbell2008a; Lester & MacKenzie, Reference Lester and MacKenzie2009; Baldwin et al., Reference Baldwin, Banks and Jacobson2012; Catalano et al, Reference Catalano, Whittington, Donnellan and Gillanders2014; Cantatore & Timi, Reference Cantatore and Timi2015; George-Nascimento & Oliva, Reference George-Nascimento and Oliva2015; Lester & Moore, Reference Lester and Moore2015; MacKenzie & Hemmingsen, Reference MacKenzie and Hemmingsen2015; Marcogliese & Jacobson, Reference Marcogliese and Jacobson2015; Reed, Reference Reed2015; Timi & MacKenzie, Reference Timi and Mackenzie2015; Pascual et al., Reference Pascual, Abollo and González2016). This compilation of literature provides an ‘evolutionary view’ of the development undergone by the use of parasites as biological markers for the study of fish populations or stocks that resulted in an increasingly efficient and reliable methodology. Therefore, there is no need to repeat their concepts and case studies here. Instead, this review will summarize some of the main recent findings of that research derived from the use of parasite tags and which aims to improve, reinforce or complement this methodology. These topics include: (a) the extension of the use of parasite indicators to host groups other than bony fishes; (b) the increasing interest in selecting those parasites’ groups of guilds, suitable for each kind and scale of study; (c) the host traits driving the structure and composition of parasite assemblages and their effects on their use as natural tags; and (d) the increasingly recognized need for integrative, multidisciplinary studies.

Parasite tags in studies of non-teleost hosts

Parasites can be used as indicators of diverse ecological features even for fragile or difficult to mark species, such as many invertebrates (Williams et al., Reference Williams, MacKenzie and McCarthy1992). The exploitation of aquatic invertebrates largely relies on extractive activities in natural populations, which require strict management measures to ensure sustainability. However, despite the economic relevance of many of these fisheries, that is, squids, scallops, prawns, lobsters, oysters and the knowledge about their parasites, few studies have used parasitological evidence for stock or population assessment. According to Timi & MacKenzie (Reference Timi and Mackenzie2015), the vast majority of published papers on parasite tags deal with teleost fish as hosts, with only a minor proportion of studies on elasmobranchs and invertebrates of commercial interest. This situation has not changed in recent years, with only four new publications on elasmobranchs (Isbert et al., Reference Isbert, Rodríguez-Cabello, Frutos, Preciado, Montero and Pérez-del-Olmo2015; Irigoitia et al., Reference Irigoitia, Incorvaia and Timi2017, Reference Irigoitia, Levy, Canel and Timi2022; Gérard et al., Reference Gérard, Hervé, Hamel, Gay, Barbier and Barreau2022) being issued since that revision. Yet no new research has been conducted on exploited invertebrates, despite the value of natural tags having been recognized for many years (Williams et al., Reference Williams, MacKenzie and McCarthy1992; Pascual & Hochberg, Reference Pascual and Hochberg1996). The present development and acceptance of this methodology may promote research on natural tags of many groups of exploited invertebrates to assist in ensuring a suitable management and sustainable exploitation of these resources.

Improvements in the selection of parasite tags

A series of criteria for selecting ideal parasite tags have been articulated and refined over the years (Kabata, Reference Kabata1963; MacKenzie, Reference MacKenzie1983, Reference MacKenzie1987; Sindermann, Reference Sindermann1983; Williams et al., Reference Williams, MacKenzie and McCarthy1992), although parasites that meet all of them are not frequently found (MacKenzie & Abaunza, Reference MacKenzie, Abaunza, Cadrin, Kerr and Mariani2014). Among the suitable characteristics, the residence time of a parasite in the subject host is one of the key features worth considering (Lester & MacKenzie, Reference Lester and MacKenzie2009). Indeed, it is suggested that parasites should persist in the host for a long period, that is, at least one year for stock identification and recruitment studies, whereas species with life spans of less than one year are acceptable for studies of seasonal migrations (MacKenzie & Abaunza, Reference MacKenzie, Abaunza, Cadrin, Kerr and Mariani2014). Some recent studies have tested these recommendations by comparing long-lived vs. short-lived parasite guilds, with results confirming the validity of these criteria. For example, long-lived larval endoparasites of red porgy Pagrus pagrus were able to discriminate among stocks along the Atlantic coast of South America, whereas short-lived guilds (ectoparasites and gastrointestinal endoparasites) exhibited significant differences even among samples belonging to a single stock (Soares et al., Reference Soares, Lanfranchi, Luque, Haimovici and Timi2018). Similar results were obtained for the Sympterigia bonapartii, a seasonally migratory skate from the same region. However, in that case, variations of transient parasites were related to the migratory behaviour of the fish, constituting, therefore, suitable markers for fish migration (Irigoitia et al., Reference Irigoitia, Incorvaia and Timi2017). In addition, temporal and or short-scale spatial variations in parasitism have been subjected to methodological analyses to avoid the possible occurrence of pseudoreplication problems (Ferrer-Castelló et al., 2007; Espinola-Novelo & Oliva, 2016).

Effect of host traits on the application of parasite tags

The role of host traits in the value of fish parasites as tags has been also under methodological scrutiny. Since long-lived parasites are recommended as biological tags for most studies, and cumulative patterns with fish age and/or size are common to them (Timi et al., Reference Timi, Luque and Poulin2010, Reference Timi, Rossin, Alarcos, Braicovich, Cantatore and Lanfranchi2011), prevalence and abundance tend to increase with host traits such as size, mass, age and even sex. Consequently, there is a need to evaluate their value as descriptors of the host population structure of stocks. In this context, Braicovich et al. (Reference Braicovich, Ieno, Sáez, Despos and Timi2016) conducted a comparative analysis of the effect of host variables on the parasite abundance and species richness in Percophis brasiliensis caught in the Argentine Sea. Length and sex consistently appeared in the most parsimonious models, suggesting that fish length seems to be a slightly better predictor than age or mass. Thus, these authors confirmed that fish size is a suitable measure of growth and recommended restricting the comparisons to fish of similar length or incorporating length as covariate when comparing parasite burdens. Host sex should be also considered for sexually dimorphic fish in terms of morphology, behaviour or growth rates.

Beyond the effect of characteristics of individual fish on their parasite burdens, evolutionary and ecological traits may exert considerable influence on comparative analyses. For example, Levy et al. (Reference Levy, Canel, Rossin, Hernández-Orts, González-Castro and Timi2019) demonstrated that parasites can be excellent models for comparative research in assessments of fine-scale population structure when site fidelity and strong adaptations to local conditions prevail and/or where physical heterogeneity needs to be revealed (Levy et al., Reference Levy, Canel, Rossin, Hernández-Orts, González-Castro and Timi2019).

The interaction between host traits (such as size or age) and ecology must be considered in some studies. For example, for migratory species whose foraging and spawning habitats alternate seasonally during their life cycles, ontogenetic changes in the structure of parasite assemblages must be taken into account since, due to cumulative patterns, host-length differences can lead to a misinterpretation of the patterns, especially when migrations are asynchronous among cohorts. This was observed for Umbrina canosai migrating between the coastal waters of southern Brazil and northern Argentina (Canel et al., Reference Canel, Levy, Braicovich, Haimovici and Timi2021). Thus, differences in parasite assemblages were more clearly observed in young fish, indicating possible variations in migratory routes, distance travelled and/or latitude reached, depending on environmental conditions and age. Consequently, it is advisable to consider the differences among fish length classes when using parasite tags for resources with temporally and spatially variable migratory patterns, especially when different cohorts are compared.

Need for integrative multidisciplinary studies

Among the most recent literature, the need for integrative studies applying simultaneously different, but complementary techniques for stock identification has been a recurrent topic for improving fishery management tools (McClelland et al., Reference McClelland, Melendy, Osborne, Reid and Douglas2005; Abaunza et al., Reference Abaunza, Murta and Campbell2008b; Niklitschek et al., Reference Niklitschek, Secor, Toledo, Lafon and George-Nascimento2010; Baldwin et al., Reference Baldwin, Banks and Jacobson2012; Mattiucci et al., Reference Mattiucci, Cimmaruta, Cipriani, Abaunza, Bellisario and Nascetti2015; Van der Lingen et al., Reference Van der Lingen, Weston, Ssempa and Reed2015; Welch et al., Reference Welch, Newman and Buckworth2015; de Moor et al., Reference de Moor, Butterworth and van der Lingen2017; Brickle et al., Reference Brickle, Randhawa, Reid, Lee, Shcherbich and Arkhipkin2021; Zhang et al., Reference Zhang, Zhu, Xu and Chen2021). In general, higher discriminatory power and increased accuracy of stock assignment may result from combining different sources of information, including host genetics, otolith microchemistry and parasites (Baldwin et al., Reference Baldwin, Banks and Jacobson2012; Brickle et al., Reference Brickle, Randhawa, Reid, Lee, Shcherbich and Arkhipkin2021; Zhang et al., Reference Zhang, Zhu, Xu and Chen2021). These advantages also include the elucidation through the complementarity of connectivity patterns of host populations across different spatial and temporal scales (Taillebois et al., Reference Taillebois, Barton and Crook2017).

Parasite genetic data and fisheries

Genetic markers are used for complementing and resolving taxonomic issues, thus helping to achieve higher taxonomic resolutions in ecological studies. Poor taxonomic resolutions may mask undetected biodiversity, probably leading to biases in ecological analyses where accurate estimates of species richness or species co-occurrences matter (Poulin & Leung, Reference Poulin and Leung2010). For example, the genetic identification of several species of larval Anisakis spp. has contributed to the identification of stocks of the European hake (Merluccius merluccius) in Atlantic and Mediterranean waters (Mattiucci et al., Reference Mattiucci, Abaunza, Ramadori and Nascetti2004), of Atlantic horse mackerel, Trachurus trachurus (Mattiucci et al., Reference Mattiucci, Farina, Campbell, MacKenzie, Ramos, Pinto, Abaunza and Nascetti2008) and of the skipjack tuna Katsuwonus pelamis in the north-west Pacific (Takano et al., Reference Takano, Iwaki, Waki, Murata, Suzuki, Kodo, Kobayashi and Ogawa2021). Similarly, the genetic identification of larval Anisakis spp. confirmed the relative contribution of oceanographically contrasting masses of waters to the parasite fauna of the silvery John dory Zenopsis conchifer, living in a transitional zone (Lanfranchi et al., Reference Lanfranchi, Braicovich, Cantatore, Alarcos, Luque and Timi2016, Reference Lanfranchi, Braicovich, Cantatore, Irigoitia, Farber, Taglioretti and Timi2018).

Beyond the value for parasite systematics, the development of molecular and computational tools for population genetics and phylogenetics has fuelled an enormous advancement of parasite ecology, including the use of molecular data on parasites to infer diverse aspects of the ecology of their hosts and reconstruct their evolutionary and demographic histories (Nieberding & Olivieri, Reference Nieberding and Olivieri2007; Archie et al., Reference Archie, Luikart and Ezenwa2009). For example, the use of genetic markers to assess population structures has been applied to parasites relevant for aquaculture, such as the sea louse Lepeophtheirus salmonis, and has improved the understanding of its dispersal capabilities and control in farmed salmonids (Glover et al., Reference Glover, Stølen, Messmer, Koop, Torrissen and Nilsen2011; Messmer et al., Reference Messmer, Rondeau, Jantzen, Lubieniecki, Davidson and Koop2011).

Selected genetic markers comprise innate tags whose advantages are that all members of a population are inherently marked and do not affect the behaviour or survival of the organisms. Furthermore, information may be obtained on conservation issues, the identification of catch origins and migratory routes (Antoniou & Magoulas, Reference Antoniou, Magoulas, Cadrin, Kerr and Mariani2014). The use of genetic information to ascertain population membership of individuals includes a variety of approaches known as assignment methods, also used to identify the number of populations coexisting in a given area, mixed-stock analysis or the origin of migrant individuals (Manel et al., Reference Manel, Gaggiotti and Waples2005; Criscione et al., Reference Criscione, Cooper and Blouin2006).

In fisheries, both mitochondrial and nuclear genetic markers are commonly used for such purposes (Antoniou & Magoulas, Reference Antoniou, Magoulas, Cadrin, Kerr and Mariani2014), but unfortunately such assignments are often inaccurate when there is little or no neutral genetic differentiation among source populations, outlining the need for alternative methods (Criscione et al., Reference Criscione, Cooper and Blouin2006). Independently of techniques utilized for the study of the geographical distribution of genetic lineages, phylogeographic patterns between species linked by a parasitic relationship may be congruent in time and space for specific, obligate parasites (Nieberding et al., Reference Nieberding, Morand, Libois and Michaux2004). The usefulness of genetic data on parasites species to assign fish to source populations was initially proposed by Beverley-Burton (Reference Beverley-Burton1978) after comparing the frequencies of allozymes in Anisakis simplex parasitizing Atlantic salmon. After this and early in the 21st century, the use of parasite genetic signatures to assess host populations and regions of origin was recommended and viewed as a promissory perspective (Manel et al., Reference Manel, Berthier and Luikart2002). Nevertheless, despite the potential of parasite genetics to identify many aspects of host phylogeography and population structure, molecular methodologies have not been widely applied to fish parasites relevant to fisheries in general (Criscione et al., Reference Criscione, Poulin and Blouin2005) and as markers of fish stocks (Pascual et al., Reference Pascual, Abollo and González2016).

The underlying idea of this methodology is that if a parasite is genetically subdivided more finely than its host, then the genotypes of the parasite in question could potentially be used to assign hosts to their population of origin with higher probabilities than by using the host genotypes (Criscione et al., Reference Criscione, Poulin and Blouin2005). Support for this concept is the fact that the rate of molecular evolution is faster in parasite DNA and RNA, relative to that within the homologous loci of their hosts, which yields genetic sequences that are comparatively better sources of data (Whiteman & Parker, Reference Whiteman and Parker2005). Furthermore, in addition to differences in mutation rates, the shorter generation time of most parasites relative to their hosts accelerates the evolutionary processes, allowing favourable genotypes of the population obtained by mutation, recombination or migration, to rapidly increase in frequency, rendering powerful inferential tools (Gandon & Michalakis, Reference Gandon and Michalakis2002; Whiteman & Parker, Reference Whiteman and Parker2005). Additionally, a parasite can be more genetically structured than its host due to the different rates of gene flow of effective population sizes between them, because not all hosts are infected and because parasites may be locally adapted at a higher level compared to their hosts (Criscione et al., Reference Criscione, Cooper and Blouin2006).

The first study to test the hypothesis that parasite genotypes are more accurate in assigning hosts to source populations than the host genotypes themselves was carried out using microsatellite markers to compare the accuracy of assignment back to known source populations between steelhead trout Oncorhynchus mykiss and its strictly freshwater parasitic trematode Plagioporus shawi (Criscione et al., Reference Criscione, Cooper and Blouin2006). These authors showed that the genotypes of the parasite had fourfold greater odds of correct assignment than host genotypes. This highlighted how the genotypes of the parasites are more accurate than host genotypes when assigning individuals to their population of origin. They may also be useful for identifying individuals from protected areas, and for tracing dispersal patterns or feeding grounds for migratory species.

More recently, several authors have studied the population genetic structure of a parasite species to infer that of its fish host along a geographical range, using mitochondrial genetic markers (table 1). Most studies have been carried out for larval Anisakis spp. on fish, with the exception of a study on cetaceans (Marigo et al., Reference Marigo, Cunha and Bertozzi2013). The success in identifying the population structure varied with the identity of both host and parasite species, the host ecology, the region of origin and the geographical scale. Indeed, this success relied on the selection of an appropriate scale of sampling to account for the different life histories and geographical distribution of the species being studied (Cross et al., Reference Cross, Collins, Campbell, Watts, Chubb, Cunningham, HatWeld and MacKenzie2007). According to Baldwin et al. (Reference Baldwin, Banks and Jacobson2012), the features and approaches necessary for selecting parasite molecular markers include: (a) ease of recovery and identification; (b) the use of more than one genetic marker to verify that a parasite species is cryptic; (c) an assessment of mutation rates for specific genetic marker types; and (d) temporal and geographical stability in a parasite population to enable long-term monitoring.

Table 1. Studies using genetic markers (mitochondrial genes) to assess population structure of marine parasites of relevance in fisheries.

In addition to those factors driving the population structure of parasites – such as evolutionary and ecological history, mode of reproduction and transmission, host dispersal, and life-cycle complexity – anthropogenic factors, such as biological invasions, environmental perturbation, global warming and extractive activities, may affect the parasite faunas (Zarlenga et al., Reference Zarlenga, Hoberg, Rosenthal, Mattiucci and Nascetti2014). In particular, stressors such as overfishing can reduce the host population size (Wood et al., Reference Wood, Lafferty and Micheli2010), with a concomitant reduction in parasite populations and the genetic diversity within them. Thus, a minimal genetic structure among geographically isolated populations may be interpreted as a hallmark of human activity (Zarlenga et al., Reference Zarlenga, Hoberg, Rosenthal, Mattiucci and Nascetti2014). Nevertheless, little has been done to correlate habitat degradation with genetic diversity among parasites’ populations, although clear-cut examples are available about the effects of habitat disturbance on the genetic diversity of anisakid nematode populations (Mattiucci & Nascetti, Reference Mattiucci and Nascetti2007, Reference Mattiucci and Nascetti2008). The values of genetic variability of different anisakid genera (i.e. Anisakis, Contracaecum and Pseudoterranova) were significantly higher in Austral populations than in Boreal regions in coincidence with a lower degree of habitat disturbance in southern populations (Mattiucci et al., Reference Mattiucci, Paoletti, Cipriani, Webb, Timi, Nascetti, Klimpel, Kuhn and Melhorn2017). Increased overfishing, the by-catch of cetaceans, the hunting and disease mortality of seals, sea water pollution and acidification in Boreal regions reduce host population sizes, which reduces the population of lower anisakid and heightens the probability of genetic drift phenomena in the parasite gene pools (Mattiucci et al., Reference Mattiucci, Cimmaruta, Cipriani, Abaunza, Bellisario and Nascetti2015). Therefore, comparisons of genetic variability among parasite populations inhabiting ecosystems with a different degree of disruption may be applied to an evaluation of the effect of overfishing or, alternatively, of protection measures for many fisheries.

Phylogeographic analysis of parasites, as well as those variations in their genetic diversity resulting from the effect of anthropogenic stressors, represent valuable and reliable sources of information to be integrated into multidisciplinary studies dealing with a holistic approach to fisheries management and stock identification (Begg & Waldman, Reference Begg and Waldman1999), aiming for the long-term maintenance and sustainability of fishery resources.

Phylogeographic analysis of both parasites and their fish host, performed on the same genes, are promissory tools to be included in multidisciplinary studies on stock structure (Mattiucci et al., Reference Mattiucci, Cimmaruta, Cipriani, Abaunza, Bellisario and Nascetti2015). Such co-phylogeographic studies, under the ‘magnifying glass hypothesis’ (the increased chance of tracking the genealogical history of the host with genetic data of the parasite) (Huyse et al., Reference Huyse, Oeyen, Larmuseau and Volckaert2017; Geraerts et al., Reference Geraerts, Huyse and Barson2022), along with the recent advances in next-generation DNA sequencing technologies and the genome-wide genotyping applications to fish parasites, will undoubtedly be of paramount relevance to fisheries and aquaculture in the near future.

Parasites as indicators of the success of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)

Fishing practices and aquaculture, in combination with many other anthropogenic factors, have led to a rapid and radical degradation of marine ecosystems. This may drive considerable and complex changes in the physical structure, chemistry, biology and ecological functioning of oceans (Lubchenco et al., Reference Lubchenco, Palumbi, Gaines and Andelman2003). Some of the signs of such alterations, related to fisheries, include abrupt changes in species composition, habitat degradation, epidemics, mass mortalities and the collapse of fisheries (Lubchenco et al., Reference Lubchenco, Palumbi, Gaines and Andelman2003).

An effective mechanism for preventing or reversing these widespread declines and for protecting, maintaining and restoring ecosystems is the implementation of MPAs, a key management tool employed worldwide to conserve biodiversity and sustain fisheries (Pelletier et al., Reference Pelletier, Claudet, Ferraris, Benedetti-Cecchi and Garcìa-Charton2008; Watson et al., Reference Watson, Dudley, Segan and Hockings2014). Indeed, MPAs allow for the recovery of depleted stocks of exploited species and provide a source of individuals for fished areas (Lubchenco et al., Reference Lubchenco, Palumbi, Gaines and Andelman2003).

Although most MPAs allow some extractive activities such as fishing, by protecting both biota and their biophysical environments, they offer an ecosystem-based approach to conservation or fisheries management (Lubchenco et al., Reference Lubchenco, Palumbi, Gaines and Andelman2003). An efficient management of MPAs requires continuous feedback on the objectives achieved and the suitable indicators for assessing the efficacy of using them (Pomeroy et al., Reference Pomeroy, Watson, Parks and Cid2005). Numerous studies have provided a broad dataset on the biological effects of reserve protection for a wide range of geographical locations and organisms (Lester et al., Reference Lester, Halpern, Grorud-Colvert, Lubchenco, Ruttenberg, Gaines, Airamé and Warner2009). On average, positive effects of reserve protection on the biomass have been reported, such as increases in density, species richness and the size of organisms within their boundaries (Lester et al., Reference Lester, Halpern, Grorud-Colvert, Lubchenco, Ruttenberg, Gaines, Airamé and Warner2009). However, there is considerable variation in the responses documented across reserves (Lester et al., Reference Lester, Halpern, Grorud-Colvert, Lubchenco, Ruttenberg, Gaines, Airamé and Warner2009), which requires further and permanent improvement of the evaluation of their ecological effects (Claudet & Guidetti, Reference Claudet and Guidetti2010).

Recent analyses (Sala & Giakoumi, Reference Sala and Giakoumi2018) showed that the biomass of whole fish assemblages in marine reserves is, on average, 670% greater than in adjacent unprotected areas, and 343% greater than in partly protected MPAs. This suggests that reserves contribute to the restoration of the complexity of ecosystems through trophic cascades once the abundance of large animals recovers sufficiently. Given the dependence of parasites on the population density of all hosts involved in their life cycles, as well as on the complexity of food webs for those trophically transmitted species (Wood et al., Reference Wood, Lafferty and Micheli2010), differences in free living communities due to protective measures are expected to have a correlate in parasite communities.

An example was provided by Huspeni & Lafferty (Reference Huspeni and Lafferty2004), who evaluated the success of an ecological restoration project at a degraded site, the Carpinteria Salt Marsh in California, United States, in a before–after, control–impact study using larval digeneans infecting the California horn snail, Cerithidea californica. Over a period of six years, trematode prevalence nearly quadrupled and species richness doubled at restored sites, whereas both factors remained unchanged at control sites. These authors attributed these changes to the use of the restored habitats by birds.

At present, several studies have evaluated the success of MPAs using fish parasites as biological indicators (table 2), most of which recorded increased abundance, species richness and/or diversity of different parasite taxa, resulting from the protection measures and varying with their characteristics. Only a few exceptions were unable to detect changes in parasite loads (Loot et al., Reference Loot, Aldana and Navarrete2005; Ternengo et al., Reference Ternengo, Levron, Mouillot and Marchand2009). Most of these studies have also evaluated the effect of MPAs on fish parasites by comparing protected and unprotected areas, with the exception of Braicovich et al. (Reference Braicovich, Irigoitia, Bovcon and Timi2021), who compared temporal changes in the composition and structure of parasite communities of P. brasiliensis. The hosts were caught at the beginning of the implementation of protection measures (temporal and spatial closures to fishery) and after a period of 13 years in a coastal region of northern Argentina (table 2).

Table 2. Studies on fish parasites as indicators of success of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs).

Temporal evaluation of changes due to MPAs should be complementary to that of spatial evaluation, since either biotic or abiotic factors can affect the structure of parasite populations and assemblages, even at an exceedingly small scale (Levy et al., Reference Levy, Canel, Rossin, Hernández-Orts, González-Castro and Timi2019). Therefore, the most reliable results are expected when using a sampling scheme comparing ‘before and after’. When complemented by simultaneous sampling ‘inside and outside’ the MPAs, this will permit the identification of any possible regional change from local variations occurring as a consequence of the protection measures.

As fishing activities reduce the density of fish and other hosts and may affect the fish populations (selectively removing large fish), they may reduce food web complexity and drive a decline in parasite burdens (Wood et al, Reference Wood, Lafferty and Micheli2010). The protection of these environments, therefore, is expected to restore the systems to their original state or at least return them as closely as possible to their original conditions, explaining the majority of the observed increases in the levels of parasitism in the studies listed in table 2. However, under certain circumstances, reserves can pose threats to conservation by increasing the density and, thus, the transmission of parasites, especially through enhanced contact rates in small, overcrowded or highly diverse reserves where organisms may be more vulnerable to infection (Ezenwa, Reference Ezenwa2004; McCallum et al., Reference McCallum, Gerber and Jani2005; Lebarbenchon et al., Reference Lebarbenchon, Poulin, Gauthier-Clerc and Thomas2007). For example, for parasites with heteroxenous life cycles, the diversity and abundance in intermediate and/or paratenic hosts should consequently increase with the diversity and abundance of definitive hosts (Hechinger & Lafferty, Reference Hechinger and Lafferty2005).

Beyond the use of parasites as indicators of the success of MPAs, their possibly detrimental effects, together with that of other pathogens, have received virtually no attention (McCallum et al., Reference McCallum, Gerber and Jani2005; Wootton et al., Reference Wootton, Woolmer, Vogan, Pope, Hamilton and Rowley2012) and should be included in any cost–benefit analysis of marine reserves to improve their efficacy and subsequent management strategies (Wootton et al., Reference Wootton, Woolmer, Vogan, Pope, Hamilton and Rowley2012).

Parasites in aquaculture

Historical reports on parasites and aquaculture

Although the production of plants and animals in the aquatic environment (aquaculture) has greatly expanded over the past century in general and the last fifty years in particular (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Reference Fioravanti, Gustinelli, Rigos, Buchmann, Caffara, Pascual and Pardo2022), this food production method is not novel. Chinese reports have described the production of various cyprinid fish species in freshwater pond culture systems since the early days, at least 8000 years ago (Costa-Pierce, Reference Costa-Pierce2022). It is also from these ancient aquacultures that the first reports of fish parasites appeared (Lom & Dykova, Reference Lom and Dykova1992). Asia is still the main producer of aquacultured fish (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Reference Fioravanti, Gustinelli, Rigos, Buchmann, Caffara, Pascual and Pardo2022), and the other main players in this region, historically and currently, are Indonesia (Rimmer et al., Reference Rimmer, Sugama, Rakhmawati, Rofiq and Habgood2013), India (Kumar et al., Reference Kumar, Khar, Dwivedi, Sharma and Himabindu2015) and Vietnam (De Silva & Phuong, Reference De Silva and Phuong2011). In Africa, archaeological evidence points to early fish-keeping in small ponds in ancient Egypt (Costa-Pierce, Reference Costa-Pierce2022), associated with exceedingly early reports of the occurrence of fish pathogens (Snieszko, Reference Snieszko1975), whereas large-scale farming developed much later in East Africa (Dadzie, Reference Dadzie1992; Mwainge et al., Reference Mwainge, Ogwai, Aura, Mutie, Ombwa, Nyaboke, Oyier and Nyyaudi2021). In South America, Brazilian aquaculture dates back to the 17th century (Valenti et al., Reference Valenti, Barros, Moraes-Valenti, Bueno and Cavalli2021), but the main focus of South American aquaculture parasitology developed much later in Chile with the advent of salmonid mariculture necessitating a focus on the ectoparasitic crustacean Caligus rogercressei. United States and Canadian mariculture industries similarly urged fish parasitologists to target L. salmonis in their research (Burka et al., Reference Burka, Fast, Revie, Woo and Buchmann2012). The North American catfish farming industry (Engle et al., Reference Espínola-Novelo and Oliva2022) was also a cradle for aquaculture parasitology. Russian aquaculture dates back several centuries. Although the culture of cyprinids has been in focus, major technological steps have been taken within sturgeon production since the 1860s (Vasilyeva et al., Reference Vasilyeva, Elhetawy, Sudakova and Astafyeva2019). In Europe, archaeological evidence points to the existence of primitive fish-keeping facilities already 6000 years ago (Costa-Pierce, Reference Costa-Pierce2022), but more organized production systems appeared later on when carp aquaculture was organized in the Roman Empire from 100 BC to AD 500. The artificial reproduction of trout was developed during the 18th century, and production facilities were subsequently established in several European countries and in North America. Despite the ancient history of aquaculture, large scale production was established far later. The intensification of production systems mainly arose over the past century, a period in which aquacultured fish from both freshwater and marine systems have gained increasingly greater economic importance (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Reference Fioravanti, Gustinelli, Rigos, Buchmann, Caffara, Pascual and Pardo2022).

Intensification of fish parasitology with the development of aquaculture

Along with the aquaculture intensification process, the study of parasitic diseases became indispensable due to the role of the diseases as a production-limiting factor. Ancient reports on diseases, although not strongly documented, date back to 330 BC. (Snieszko, Reference Snieszko1975), and classical zoologists with an interest in parasites, such as Müller (Reference Müller1776) and Abildgaard (Reference Abildgaard1794a, Reference Abildgaardb), described a range of parasites in fish. Although the stringency and level of detail in their descriptions lag behind modern systematics, their contributions remain valid. The impact of parasites on productivity was not a major issue until commercial aquaculture developed, however.

The spread of natural infections (caused by viral, bacterial, protozoan and metazoan pathogens) of wild fish to domesticated fish species was largely uncharacterized and unknown before the intensification process. The impact of infections on cultured fish kept in high densities became increasingly visible. The pathogens could be detected, isolated and described, and with the increasing focus on fish production seen during the past century, important parasitic pathogens have been the subject of increasing interest and research efforts. In the early 20th century, Hofer (Reference Hofer1904) and later Plehn (Reference Plehn1924) published their treatises on parasitic diseases in fish. In the following years, a wide series of publications, research papers and textbooks emerged and now constitute a valuable basis for the control of parasitic diseases in aquaculture.

The number of parasites in wild fish is extremely high, which is a consequence of the vast number of fish species (33,000) described. The high specificity of fish parasites will result in a correspondingly high number of parasites. In contrast, there are 369 species of aquacultured fish (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Reference Fioravanti, Gustinelli, Rigos, Buchmann, Caffara, Pascual and Pardo2022), meaning that the number of parasite species is correspondingly lower. This is reflected in the publications on fish parasites published over the past century. Papers on wild fish issues are concerned with a wide diversity of parasites, whereas papers on aquaculture parasites target a limited number of species. On the other hand, the number of publications on the individual aquaculture parasite species may be extreme due to the massive problems caused by individual species such as Ichthyophthirius multifiliis and L. salmonis.

Differing impacts of different parasite types

The different parasite types also differ with regard to their role as pathogens in aquaculture settings. Nematodes with complex life cycles, such as anisakids, are highly prevalent in wild fish stocks (Gay et al., Reference Gay, Bao and MacKenzie2018; Mattiucci et al., Reference Mattiucci, Giulietti and Paoletti2018), but are generally not found in aquacultured fish (Fioravanti et al., 2021). The swim bladder nematode Anguillicoloides crassus, which uses copepods as intermediate hosts (and fish as transport hosts), may occur in eel cultures following the introduction of wild-caught infected elvers, because stocking is still based on wild fish. When subsequently established in fish cultures, these can have a devastating impact on productivity, but these nematodes exert their main impact on wild stocks (Lefebvre et al., Reference Lefebvre, Fazio, Crivelli, Woo and Buchmann2012).

Likewise, there are reports of acanthocephalans occurring in aquacultured fish, but these are primarily associated with pond cultures connected to natural waters from where intermediate hosts (amphipods and isopods) may enter the production system. Their impact on fish in the most intensive aquaculture production systems is limited, however, because the water inlet is controlled and transmission eliminated. In contrast, other parasites with less complex life cycles may flourish. Below, selected examples of protozoans and metazoans (monogeneans, cestodes and crustaceans) in aquaculture settings are presented, focusing on their development over the past century.

Problematic protozoans

Over the past century, protozoans have caused serious disease in aquacultured fish, which has fostered a vast amount of literature focused on amoebae (Nowak, Reference Nowak, Woo and Buchmann2012; Nowak et al., Reference Nowak, Valdenegro-Vega, Crosbie and Bridle2014), haemoflagellates Cryptobia (Woo & Li, Reference Woo and Li1990), Trypanoplasma (Wiegertjes et al., Reference Wiegertjes, Groeneveld and van Muiswiunkel1995), bodonid flagellates (Ichthyobodo) (Chettri et al., Reference Chettri, Kuhn, Jafaar, Kania, Møller and Buchmann2014), diplomonadid flagellates (Spironucleus) (Sterud et al., Reference Sterud, Mo and Poppe1998), scuticociliates (Philasterides) (Lamas et al., Reference Lamas, Sanmartin, Parama, Castro and Cabaleiro2008) and hymenostomatid ciliates such as Ichthyophthirius (Dickerson et al., Reference Dickerson, Clark and Leff1993).

Finds of I. multifiliis in cultured fish, macroscopically visible as epidermal white spots, were detected in China as early as the Sung dynasty (starting from AD 926) (Lom & Dykova, Reference Lom and Dykova1992). This protozoan was scientifically described later on in France by Fouquet (Reference Fouquet1876), as it was frequently found in trout in nearby freshwater ponds. During the 20th century, the parasite was the subject of numerous investigations due to its high pathogenicity and commercial importance. It was especially interesting that fish developed a level of resistance to reinfection indicating the development of an immune response (Buschkiel, Reference Buschkiel1910), as this could imply that immunoprophylaxis, including vaccination, would be a possible control strategy. Russian fish parasitologists investigated this in more depth and noted that the antiparasitic response was positively correlated to the size of the primary infection (Bauer, Reference Bauer1953). It was later shown that carp activated a series of humoral and cellular immune factors while infected (Hines & Spira, Reference Hines and Spira1973, Reference Hines and Spira1974), and these authors could confirm a protective response established in the fish host. The accumulation of host lymphocytes, macrophages and neutrophils around the feeding stage of the parasite (the trophont) in the host epidermis was further characterized by Cross & Matthews (Reference Cross and Matthews1993). The lymphocytes surrounding the trophonts were later demonstrated to stain positively for B-cell and T-cell markers (Olsen et al., Reference Olsen, Heinecke, Skjødt, Rasmussen, Kania and Buchmann2011). The humoral reactions were shown to include antibodies with high specificity in some cases (Dickerson et al., Reference Dickerson, Clark and Leff1993; Clark et al., Reference Clark, Lin and Dickerson1996; Sigh & Buchmann, Reference Sigh and Buchmann2001; Alishahi & Buchmann, Reference Alishahi and Buchmann2006) and complementary factors (Gonzales et al., Reference Gonzales, Nielsen and Buchmann2007).

Following the development of new immunological tools, it was shown that not only did the fish host produce immunoglobulin M (IgM) (Dickerson et al., Reference Dickerson, Clark and Leff1993; Sigh & Buchmann, Reference Sigh and Buchmann2001), but also another immunoglobulin class that was recently detected and termed immunoglobulin T (IgT). These antibodies were secreted both systemically and locally on mucosal surfaces against the invading parasite (Jørgensen et al., Reference Jørgensen, Heinecke, Skjoedt, Rasmussen and Buchmann2011; Olsen et al., Reference Olsen, Heinecke, Skjødt, Rasmussen, Kania and Buchmann2011; Xu et al., Reference Xu, Parra and Gomez2013). Whereas genes encoding immunoglobulin classes IgM and IgT are found upregulated during the course of infection, a third class, immunoglobulin D was downregulated (Jaafar et al., Reference Jaafar, Ødegård and Mathiessen2020). Furthermore, transcriptomic data subsequently indicated that the number of genes involved in the rainbow trout response towards I. multifiliis infection counted more than 1796 up-regulated and 1556 down-regulated gene sequences (Syahputra et al., Reference Syahputra, Kania, Al-Jubury, Jafaar, Dirks and Buchmann2019). Despite the well documented development of an adaptive immune response in fish towards I. multifiliis, and several attempts to produce vaccines against the infection, experimental vaccines (based on proteins or DNA) (Jørgensen et al., Reference Jørgensen, Sigh, Kania, Holten-Andersen, Buchmann, Clark, Rasmussen, Einer-Jensen and Lorenzen2012, Reference Jørgensen, Kania, Rasmussen, Mattsson, Schmidt, Al-Jubury, Sander, Salanti and Buchmann2017) have only exhibited a partial protection, and commercial vaccines are still not available at present.

Investigations conducted over the past century have described various ways to control the infection by use of chemotherapeutants and medicines. The organic dye malachite green was applied for years in facilities producing both ornamental and production fish (Alderman, Reference Alderman1985). Its toxicity and carcinogenicity, and subsequent ban of its usage (European Food Safety Authority, Reference Engle, Hanson and Kumar2016), prompted farmers to search for alternatives (Rintamäki-Kinnunen et al., Reference Rintamäki-Kinnunen, Rahkonen, Mannermaa-Keränen, Suomalainen, Mykrä and Valtonen2005; Picon-Camacho et al., Reference Picon-Camacho, Marcos-Lopez and Shinn2012). Biocides used in water baths – such as formalin, hydrogen peroxide (Rach et al., Reference Rach, Gaikowski and Ramsay2000), peracetic acid (Meinelt et al., Reference Meinelt, Matzke, Stüber, Pietrock, Wienke, Mitchell and Straus2009; Mathiessen et al., Reference Mathiessen, Marana, Korbut, Wu, Al-Jubury, Karami, Kania and Buchmann2021b), sodium percarbonate (Heinecke & Buchmann, Reference Heinecke and Buchmann2009), copper sulphate (Straus, Reference Straus1993) and potassium permanganate (Straus & Griffin, Reference Straus and Griffin2001) – were then investigated for a description of their efficacy and environmental impact. The biocides releasing hydrogen peroxide generally induce an inflammatory response in the skin of the fish host (Mathiessen et al., Reference Mathiessen, Marana, Korbut, Wu, Al-Jubury, Karami, Kania and Buchmann2021b), but are considered relatively safe from an environmental point of view, because the reaction products from the interaction with organic material are carbon dioxide, oxygen and water. These oxidizing agents are being applied in increasing amounts, but the search for alternative products is still ongoing. Herbal extracts have exhibited strong effects on different stages of the parasite (Lin et al., Reference Lin, Hua, Zhang, Xu, Fu, Liu and Zhou2016; Mathiessen et al., Reference Mathiessen, Jaafar, Al-Jubury, Jørgensen, Kania and Buchmann2021a), but before licensing, marketing and possible application at farm level, further investigations into the environmental impact, toxicity towards the host and any effect on human health are needed. Correspondingly, a lipopeptide (surfactant) isolated from the bacterium Pseudomonas H6 has lethal effects on the theronts, tomonts and tomocysts of Ichthyophthirius (Al-Jubury et al., Reference Al-Jubury, Lu, Kania, Jørgensen, Liu, de Bruijn, Raaijmakers and Buchmann2018; Li et al., Reference Li, He, Jaafar, Kania and Buchmann2022). Subsequent studies of this microbial compound demonstrated a low level of host effects (skin inflammation in rainbow trout) (Mathiessen et al., Reference Mathiessen, Marana, Korbut, Wu, Al-Jubury, Karami, Kania and Buchmann2021b) and limited adverse effects on cyanobacteria, green algae, Daphnia and zebrafish (Korbut et al., Reference Korbut, Skjolding, Mathiessen, Jaafar, Li, Jørgensen, Kania, Wu and Buchmann2022). These initial ecotoxicological steps suggest a potential future use of the compound in aquaculture enterprises, but the road to licensing must be completed before its usage. This will include future research into the toxicological and environmental effects.

Due to the questionable use of chemotherapy, research efforts targeting alternative methods have been increasingly prominent. One approach has highlighted the use of ultraviolet irradiation (Gratzek et al., Reference Gratzek, Gilbert, Lohr, Shotts and Brown1983), and another the application of mechanical control techniques by removing key life-cycle stages. Continuous filtration of water to remove tomonts, thus preventing tomocyst formation with the release of infective stages, was demonstrated by Heinecke & Buchmann (Reference Heinecke and Buchmann2009). In line with this approach, Shinn et al. (Reference Shinn, Picon-Camacho, Bawden and Taylor2009) launched a strategy for removal of tomocysts by coating fish tanks with a material to prevent tomocyst attachment. This enabled the loose parasite stages to be removed by a modified vacuum-cleaning technique.

A more recent approach to Ichthyophthirius control in fish farms is based on the observed differential susceptibility of fish to infection, which suggests that it is possible to breed fish with a higher natural resistance to infection. When exposing an outbred population of rainbow trout to infection, using infective theronts, a serious infection develops but with a different time span from disease to death (Jaafar et al., Reference Jaafar, Ødegård and Mathiessen2020). By genotyping individual fish, both susceptible fish and those that stay healthy, it was possible to identify genetic markers (single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs)) in the host genome associated with relative resistance. This information was then applied by the breeder to select spawners carrying the beneficial SNPs. By using these selected fish as parent fish to produce the next generation, it is possible to establish strains with improved resistance (Buchmann et al., Reference Buchmann, Nielsen, Mathiessen, Marana, Duan, Jørgensen, Zuo, Karami and Kania2022).

Problematic myxozoans

Over the past century, myxozoan biology research has expanded markedly. The number of described species in both wild and cultured fish populations has increased dramatically, but for aquaculturists the main target was to develop control methods. The impact of Myxobolus cerebralis, eliciting whirling disease in trout cultures, attracted the interest of various research groups. With the, at the time, surprising results by Wolf & Markiw (Reference Wolf and Markiw1984), showing that oligochaetes were obligate elements of the life cycle, a brand-new stage for biological and life-cycle studies opened up in the field of myxozoan biology. The past four decades have seen prominent research and the surprising impact of myxozoans on aquaculture production (Sitjà-Bobadilla et al., Reference Sitjà-Bobadilla, Diamant, Palenzuela and Alvarez-Pellitero2007). The elevated exposure of this specific field has paved the way for numerous descriptions of life cycles (Székely et al., Reference Székely, Borkhanuddin, Cech, Kelemen and Molnár2014) and new insights into immune responses in the host towards myxozoans (Bartholomew et al., Reference Bartholomew, Lorz, Sollid and Stevens2003; Sitjà-Bobadilla et al., Reference Sitjà-Bobadilla, Diamant, Palenzuela and Alvarez-Pellitero2007; Holzer et al., Reference Holzer, Carla Piazzon, Barrett, Bartholomew and Sitjà-Bobadilla2021).

Problematic monogeneans

Monogeneans have a direct life cycle and pathogenic potential, which is illustrated by events occurring in both natural waters and aquaculture settings. A series of fish-parasitizing monogeneans were already described by Müller (Reference Müller1776), among these, large species such as the capsalid Entobdella hippoglossi from halibut, which in aquacultural settings may suffer from infection (Bergh et al., Reference Bergh, Nilsen and Samuelsen2001). In the same era, the monogeneans Nitschia sturionis from the sturgeon and Axine belones, from the garfish Belone belone, were described by Abildgaard (Reference Abildgaard1794a, Reference Abildgaardb). The latter monogenean was later shown to be highly pathogenic to Acipenser nudiventris, an endemic sturgeon species in the Aral Sea. The different susceptibility of different sturgeon species became evident following the anthropogenic introduction of the parasite with Acipenser stellatus from the Caspian Sea. The latter host species seemed to support a balanced relationship with the parasite in its original habitat (the Caspian Sea). However, when N. sturionis was introduced to a new location, the parasite spread to the endemic sturgeon species, which appeared highly susceptible. Consequently, the introduced monogenean caused an epidemic resulting in mass mortality among the local sturgeon population (Petrushevski & Shulman, Reference Petrushevski, Shulman, Dogiel and Petrushevski1961). The interest in monogeneans and their peculiarities emerged in the 20th century, and Russian (Bychowky, Reference Bychowsky1957), Pacific (Yamaguti, Reference Yamaguti1968; Ogawa, Reference Ogawa, Woo and Buchmann2012; Whittington, Reference Whittington, Woo and Buchmann2012), European (Llewellyn, Reference Llewellyn1965; Justine, Reference Justine1993) and American (Kritsky & Boeger, Reference Kritsky and Boeger2002) schools laid the groundwork for extensive, global monogenean research. However, the description of the genus Gyrodactylus by Nordmann (Reference Nordmann1832) had already initiated the description of several hundred species within this genus, many of which showed high pathogenic potential. A classic case is the epidemic caused by Gyrodactylus salaris, which spread through more than fifty salmon rivers in Norway. The parasite species was originally isolated and described by Malmberg (Reference Malmberg1957). The specimens were obtained from Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in a Swedish salmon hatchery producing juvenile fish from a local strain of Baltic salmon. The species was subsequently introduced in Norway during the 1970s with infected salmon smolts (Mo, Reference Mo, Woo, Leong and Buchmann2020). In Baltic rivers (draining Swedish, Finnish and Russian catchment areas), the infection level was generally low due to a well-documented lower susceptibility/higher resistance in the strains of Baltic salmon compared to the east Atlantic salmon stocks. These Atlantic strains, occurring in Norway, Scotland and Denmark, all showed a high susceptibility and vulnerability to G. salaris infection (Bakke et al., Reference Bakke, Jansen and Hansen1990; Dalgaard et al., Reference Dalgaard, Nielsen and Buchmann2003; Lindenstrøm et al., Reference Lindenstrøm, Sigh, Dalgaard and Buchmann2006). This encouraged genetic research to determine genetic markers for resistance against infection in the Atlantic salmon genome (Gilbey et al., Reference Gilbey, Verspoor, Mo, Sterud, Olstad and Hytterød2006), suggesting that breeding could improve the survival rate of exposed fish.

Severe disease is often associated with monogeneans infecting fish hosts in confined environments, such as public aquaria. This was documented by Jahn & Kuhn (Reference Jahn and Kuhn1932) and Nigrelli & Breder (Reference Nigrelli and Breder1934), both of which described massive infections by Neobenedenia melleni across a broad spectrum of host fishes. In the same period, freshwater aquaculture became increasingly popular, and particular attention was given to monogeneans recognized as pathogens in cyprinid aquaculture. The fish were suffering from monogenean infections comprising species within the genera Dactylogyrus and Gyrodactylus. Common carp cultures were found to be infected with Dactylogyrus vastator, Dactylogyrus anchoratus and Dactylogyrus extensus (Wunder, Reference Wunder1929; Prost, Reference Prost1963; Paperna, Reference Paperna1964; Buchmann et al., Reference Buchmann, Slotved and Dana1993) and tench cultures with Gyrodactylus macracanthus (Wilde, Reference Wilde1937). The extensive introduction of cyprinid species from East Asia to Europe further stimulated the research into parasites of aquacultured species. Thus, Molnar (Reference Molnar1984) could add several introduced dactylogyrids, including Dactylogyrus lamellatus imported with grass carp Ctenopharyngodon idella, to the list of new species in Europe. Various chemicals and drugs have been used for treatment, and one of the anthelmintics, praziquantel, showed an effect (Schmahl & Mehlhorn, Reference Schmahl and Mehlhorn1985). The farming of Japanese eels has a long history in the Far East including Japan, but recirculating aquaculture systems were constructed in the 1970s and stocked with glass-eels caught in natural waters. The congeneric species Pseudodactylogyrus anguillae and Pseudodactylogyrus bini, originally described in China and Japan, respectively, were thereby introduced into European farms and showed a tremendous ability to propagate under these confined conditions (Buchmann, Reference Buchmann, Woo and Buchmann2012). The anthelmintic mebendazole was shown to eliminate the parasites (Szekely & Molnar, Reference Szekely and Molnar1987), which initiated the frequent use of the compound at farm level. However, reduced sensitivity to the drug was documented in the monogeneans after repeated treatments (Buchmann et al., Reference Buchmann, Roepstorff and Waller1992), supporting previous reports outlining the risk of anthelmintic resistance in monogeneans (Goven et al., Reference Goven, Gilbert and Gratzek1980).

With the development of mariculture facilities, introducing a range of new species with a high market value, the natural parasites of the new production species demonstrated their pathogenic potential. One of the maricultured species, Seriola quinqueradiata, carries the monogenean Benedenia seriolae, a large capsalid that colonizes the head, flanks, eyes and fins of the fish. The continuous browsing of epidermal tissue will cause skin erosion and require treatment (Whittington, Reference Whittington, Woo and Buchmann2012). Evidence points to the potential for breeding strains with a higher natural resistance to infection. Thus, quantitative trait loci for resistance were determined through a genome-wide analysis (Ozaki et al., Reference Ozaki, Yoshida, Fuji, Kubota, Kai and Aoki2013), which paves the way for future breeding programmes. Puffer fish (Takifugu rubripes) are a major commodity in Japanese aquaculture, and the monogenean Heterobothrium okamotoi, occupying the branchial cavity of the fish, has proved a major pathogen (Ogawa, Reference Ogawa, Woo and Buchmann2012). It is haematophagous, and severe infection levels cause anaemia in the host, which has made control methods a major research target (Ogawa & Yokoyama, Reference Ogawa and Yokoyama1998; Kimura et al., Reference Kimura, Nomura, Kawakami, Itano, Iwasaki, Morita and Enomoto2009). The maricultured rockfish Sebastes schlegeli is infected with Microcotyle sebastis, creating corresponding pathological challenges due to the haematophagous feeding habit of the parasite. Research pointed to anthelmintic treatments using praziquantel as the most promising method (Kim & Cho, Reference Kim and Cho2000). A corresponding polyopisthocotylean monogenean Sparicotyle chrysophrii, causing similar problems in Mediterranean mariculture of gilthead seabream, may be controlled by this anthelmintic as well (Sitjà-Bobadilla et al., Reference Sitjà-Bobadilla, Felipe and Alvarez-Pellitero2006). The possibility of taking an immunoprophylactic approach (vaccination) to reduce the impact of parasitism was presented by Kim et al. (Reference Kim, Hwang, Cho and Park2000).

Problematic cestodes

Some species of cestodes, such as the so-called Asian tapeworm Bothriocephalus acheilognathi, play a role in some fish productions. The parasite is associated with cyprinid production, and over the past century, reports have shown that carp fry in particular suffer due to high loads of cestodes (Scholz & Di Cave, Reference Scholz and Di Cave1993; Scholz et al., Reference Scholz, Kuchta, Williams, Woo and Buchmann2012). As Asian carp production dominates global aquaculture (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Reference Fioravanti, Gustinelli, Rigos, Buchmann, Caffara, Pascual and Pardo2022), the overall impact of this cestode should not be disregarded. Another bothriocephalidean cestode Eubothrium crassum occurs in the pyloric caeca of salmonids and may decrease the growth rate in mariculture at certain sites (Saksvik et al., Reference Saksvik, Nilsen, Nylund and Berland2001). As fish also may serve as intermediate hosts of certain cestodes with a human pathogenic potential, such as Dibothriocephalus (syn. Diphyllobothrium) latum and Dibothriocephalus dendriticum, a series of studies in this field has been published over the past century.

Problematic digeneans

Most digenean life cycles depend on an intermediate molluscan host. Various snail species have shown to be able to colonize aquaculture ponds if these are connected to natural aquatic systems. Over the past century, numerous studies have documented how these molluscs play this key role in the transmission of digeneans to aquacultured fish. Several of these digeneans have demonstrated their pathogenic potential in fish. A classic example is the group of eye flukes using birds as a final host, snails as the initial intermediate hosts and the fish host as an intermediate host harbouring metacercariae in their eyes (Karvonen & Marcogliese, Reference Karvonen, Marcogliese, Woo, Leong and Buchmann2020). Representative genera are Diplostomum and Tylodelphys, parasites occupying the lens and corpus vitreum of the fish host, respectively. These eye flukes may severely affect vision (Duan et al., Reference Duan, Jørgensen, Kania, Al-Jubury, Karami and Buchmann2021), whereas other species reach maturity in mammals including humans and are thus regarded as serious zoonotic pathogens. Classic examples are Clonorchis, Opisthorchis, Metagonimus, Haplorchis, Centrocestus and Pseudamphistomum where the most effective control methods established rely on snail control in ponds and the control of infective stages in inlet water (Skov et al., Reference Skov, Kania, Jørgensen and Buchmann2008, Reference Skov, Kania, Dalsgaard, Jørgensen and Buchmann2009; Madsen et al., Reference Madsen, Nguyen, Lanza and Stauffer2022). A prominent digenean group are blood flukes with a non-molluscan host, a polychaete, as the intermediate host. These parasites infect tuna in their natural environment but due to the practice of stocking wild juvenile tuna in net pens, these blood worms have become aquacultural parasites (Power et al., Reference Power, Evenden, Rough, Webber, Widdicombe, Nowak and Bott2021).

Problematic parasitic crustaceans

Crustacean parasites comprise a richness of species, and the literature encompassing species descriptions, life cycles and general biology has expanded over the past century (Kabata, Reference Kabata1979). With the advent of new aquaculture, species-specific interest has been concentrated on those exhibiting pathogenic potential. This applies to branchiurans (Møller, Reference Møller, Woo and Buchmann2012), isopods such as Cerathotoa in gilthead seabream farming (Mladineo et al., Reference Mladineo, Hrabar and Vidjak2020), copepods such as lernaeids (Avenant-Oldewage, Reference Avenant-Oldewage, Woo and Buchmann2012) and, not least, caligids (L. salmonis and C. rogercrosseyi) (Burka et al., Reference Burka, Fast, Revie, Woo and Buchmann2012). Mariculture based on net pens stocked with salmonids developed during the 1960s (Gjedrem, Reference Gjedrem and Gjedrem1986). With an increasing number of fish in confined environments exposed to natural environmental parameters, including various pathogens, parasitic problems rapidly emerged. Lepeophtheirus salmonis showed the potential to propagate rapidly in mariculture settings, and it is now considered the main parasitic problem in the net-pen based production of salmonids (Torrissen et al., Reference Torrissen, Jones, Asche, Guttormsen, Skilbrei, Nilsen, Horsberg and Jackson2013). This causative pathogen has been known about for centuries from observations of wild Atlantic salmon returning from their sea migration. Berland & Margolis (Reference Berland and Margolis1983) found written evidence that the bishop Erik L. Pontoppidan (1698–1764) observed Atlantic salmon (S. salar) with heavy infestations of lice, probably salmon lice, when they returned to the rivers of Western Norway. The first scientific description was done by Krøyer (Reference Krøyer1838), who reported that this crustacean parasite was common in Danish salmon in summer. Krøyer termed the species Caligus salmonis, but its lack of lunules places it in the genus Lepeophtheirus erected by Nordmann (Reference Nordmann1832). In high-intensity occurrences, the parasite may cause massive damage to the host's skin. Erosion of the epidermis and dermis may expose underlying muscle layers, which was also described in wild Atlantic salmon returning from sea migration to the Moser river in Nova Scotia decades before mariculture was established (White, Reference White1940). Since the early reports of salmon lice problems in mariculture during the 1970s, the interest in research has increased exponentially. The number of peer reviewed scientific publications about L. salmonis found at SCI (Science Citation Index, Web of Science) has reached 1469 in mid-2022 and close to 100 papers on salmon lice are being published annually. Accordingly, the total number of citations may exceed 5000 per year. Due to the marked disease problem caused by the lice, a main part of the publications has been concerned with control methods, including chemical and medical treatments. A series of compounds and drugs have been tested and various drugs and compounds such as hydrogen peroxide (Helgesen et al., Reference Helgesen, Aaen, Romstad and Horsberg2015), organophosphates (Kaur et al., Reference Kaur, Jansen, Aspehaug and Horsberg2016), pyrethroids (Bakke et al., Reference Bakke, Agusti, Bruusgaard, Sundaram and Horsberg2018), emamectin benzoate (Stone et al., Reference Stone, Roy, Sutherland, Ferguson, Sommerville and Endris2002; Lees et al., Reference Lees, Baillie, Gettinby and Revie2008; Poley et al., Reference Poley, Purcell, Igboeli, Donkin, Wotton and Fast2013) and chitin synthesis inhibitors (Harðardottir et al., Reference Harðardottir, Male, Nilsen and Dalvin2019) have been investigated and subsequently used. However, due to the rapid development of resistance to treatment (Helgesen et al., Reference Helgesen, Aaen, Romstad and Horsberg2015; Kaur et al., Reference Kaur, Jansen, Aspehaug and Horsberg2016; Bakke et al., Reference Bakke, Agusti, Bruusgaard, Sundaram and Horsberg2018), researchers have been looking for other control strategies. These may include the use of cleaner fish (labrids and lumpfish) (Bjordal, Reference Bjordal1991; Groner et al., Reference Groner, Cox, Gettinby and Revie2013; Imsland et al., Reference Imsland, Reynolds, Eliassen, Hangstad, Foss, Vikingstad and Elvegård2014). Removal of infective larvae using filtration by bivalves was shown to work experimentally (Bartsch et al., Reference Bartsch, Robinson, Liutkus, Ang, Webb and Pearce2013). Direct high-tech combatting of lice on salmon by radiating the lice with laser beams was tested, but found less effective (Bui et al., Reference Bui, Geitung, Oppedal and Barrett2020). Mechanical removal by freshwater flushing has been widely implemented in the industry (Østevik et al., Reference Østevik, Stormoen and Evensen2022) and may, despite its adverse effects on the host, lead to a reduction of the lice count. More intricate farm constructions have used the knowledge about host-finding behaviour by the infective salmon louse copepodids. These seek the upper layers of water when attaching to the host, an observation that was exploited by Geitung et al. (Reference Geitung, Oppedal, Stien, Dempster, Karlsbakk, Nola and Wright2019) when constructing snorkel cages to prevent copepodids from attacking salmon kept at lower water depths. Still other ideas were developed that included the use of herbal repellents to jam the parasite's host finding (O'Shea et al., Reference O'Shea, Wadsworth, Pino-Marambio, Birkett, Pickett and Mordue-Luntz2016). Genetic markers for susceptibility have been identified (Gharbi et al., Reference Gharbi, Glover, Stone, MacDonald, Matthews and Grimholt2009), and quantitative trait loci for resistance in salmon have been described (Robledo et al., Reference Robledo, Guitierrez, Barria, Lhorente, Houston and Yanez2019), which may lead to development of breeding programmes to obtain salmon with a higher natural resistance to infection. Several research groups have focused on the immune response in fish against lice infestations (Dalvin et al., Reference Dalvin, Jørgensen, Kania, Grotmol, Buchmann and Øvergård2020) and have documented the responses. This has encouraged others to invest in the development of vaccines to control the salmon lice problem at salmon farms, and recently Tartor et al. (Reference Tartor, Karlsen and Skern-Mauritzen2022) reported a partial reduction of infection in Atlantic salmon vaccinated with a recombinant louse gut protein. Although the research efforts in this field must be characterized as impressive and extensive, they have yet to result in a control of the problem, but serve as a sound basis for future research.

Future perspectives

According to the United Nations, it is estimated that nearly eleven billion people will inhabit the Earth by the end of the 21st century (Adam, Reference Adam2021), and the global food-producing sector, including fisheries and aquaculture, faces the challenge of increasing its levels of production to ensure food and nutrition for this growing population. Marine fish stocks, however, are in decline in many parts of the oceans due to overfishing and climate change (Sumaila & Tai, Reference Sumaila and Tai2020), and their assessment and the basis for management are preferably achieved through integrated analysis (or integrated population modelling) methods, including the use of parasites and other biological markers (Punt et al., Reference Punt, Dunn, Elvarsson, Hampton, Hoyle, Maunder, Methot and Nielsen2020).

For such purposes, parasitologists must provide reliable tools that can be integrated into multidisciplinary studies. Therefore, further research is required to clarify the selection criteria for biological indicators, adjusting them to each kind of study, host–parasite system and environment. The role of different host traits on parasite populations must be also determined and their effects controlled in order to achieve reliable comparisons. Finally, the use of molecular studies of parasites – both to increase the taxonomic resolution of quantitative studies and to use the parasite population structure as an additional tool for fish stock assessment – is one of the most promising avenues for new research on parasite tags.

The studies on parasites in aquaculture settings have increased exponentially over the past century due to the massive development of the aquaculture business and the need to safeguard the health of production fish suffering from parasitic infections. The potential for further expanding the industry is high (Gentry et al., Reference Gentry, Froehlich, Grimm, Kareiva, Parke, Rust, Gaines and Halpern2017) and may surpass the expected continued expansion of aquaculture productions in coming decades (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Reference Fioravanti, Gustinelli, Rigos, Buchmann, Caffara, Pascual and Pardo2022), which will further emphasize the need for parasitological research. As the massive investment, due to the economic importance of aquaculture, already seen in parasitological research has resulted in an enormous expansion of the overall knowledge about fish parasites and their biology, it is likely that we will enjoy a further development of the literature in the field of aquaculture parasites in the years ahead.

Acknowledgement

The authors thank Dr Robert Poulin for kindly inviting us to write this contribution to this Special Issue celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Journal of Helminthology.

Financial support

Financial support was provided by grants from Fondo para la Investigación Científica y Tecnológica, ANPCyT (PICT 2018 No. 1981, PICT 2018 No. 2359) and Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata (15/E1062; EXA1104/22).

Conflicts of interest

None.

Ethics statement

Since this is a review work, no ethical statement is needed regarding use of animals for scientific purposes.

References

Abaunza, P, Murta, AG, Campbell, N, et al. (2008a) Considerations on sampling strategies for an holistic approach to stock identification: the example of the HOMSIR project. Fisheries Research 89(2), 104113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abaunza, P, Murta, AG, Campbell, N, et al. (2008b) Stock identity of horse mackerel (Trachurus trachurus) in the Northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea: integrating the results from different stock identification approaches. Fisheries Research 89(2), 196209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abildgaard, PC (1794a) Description of a new leech found on the gills of the sturgeon. Skrifter af Naturselskabet 3(1), 5556.Google Scholar
Abildgaard, PC (1794b) Description of a new parasitic worm (Axine bellones) found on the gills of the garfish. Skrifter af Naturselskabet 3(1), 5960. [In Danish.]Google Scholar
Adam, A (2021) How far will global population rise? Nature 597(7877), 463465.Google Scholar
Al-Jubury, A, Lu, C, Kania, PW, Jørgensen, LG, Liu, Y, de Bruijn, I, Raaijmakers, J and Buchmann, K (2018) Impact of Pseudomonas H6 surfactant on all external life cycle stages of the fish parasitic ciliate Ichthyophthirius multifiliis. Journal of Fish Diseases 41(7), 11471152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alderman, D (1985) Malachite green – a review. Journal of Fish Diseases 8(3), 289298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alishahi, M and Buchmann, K (2006) Temperature-dependent protection against Ichthyophthirius multifiliis following immunisation of rainbow trout using live theronts. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 72(3), 269273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antoniou, A and Magoulas, A (2014) Application of mitochondrial DNA in stock identification. pp. 257295. In Cadrin, SX, Kerr, LA and Mariani, S (Eds) Stock identification methods. Burlington, MA, Elsevier, Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archie, EA, Luikart, G and Ezenwa, VO (2009) Infecting epidemiology with genetics: a new frontier in disease ecology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24(1), 2130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avenant-Oldewage, A (2012) Lernaea cyprinacea. pp. 337349. In Woo, PTK and Buchmann, K (Eds) Fish parasites: pathobiology and protection. Wallingford, UK, CABI.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakke, TA, Jansen, PA and Hansen, LP (1990) Differences in the host resistance of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) stocks to the monogenean Gyrodactylus salaris Malmberg, 1957. Journal of Fish Biology 37(4), 577587.Google Scholar
Bakke, MJ, Agusti, C, Bruusgaard, JC, Sundaram, AYM and Horsberg, TE (2018) Deltamethrin resistance in the salmon louse, Lepeophtheirus salmonis (Krøyer): maternal inheritance and reduced apoptosis. Scientific Reports 8(1), 114.Google Scholar
Baldwin, RE, Rew, MB, Johansson, ML, Banks, MA and Jacobson, KC (2011) Population structure of three species of Anisakis nematodes recovered from Pacific sardines (Sardinops sagax) distributed throughout the California Current System. Journal of Parasitology 97(4), 545554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldwin, RE, Banks, MA and Jacobson, KC (2012) Integrating fish and parasite data as a holistic solution for identifying the elusive stock structure of Pacific sardines (Sardinops sagax). Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 22(1), 137156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartholomew, JL, Lorz, HV, Sollid, SA and Stevens, DG (2003) Susceptibility of juvenile and yearling bull trout to Myxobolus cerebralis, and effects of sustained parasite challenges. Journal of Aquatic Animal Health 15(3), 248255.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartoli, P, Gibson, DI and Bray, RA (2005) Digenean species diversity in teleost fish from a nature reserve off Corsica, France (Western Mediterranean), and a comparison with other Mediterranean regions. Journal of Natural History 39(1), 4770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartsch, A, Robinson, SMC, Liutkus, M, Ang, KP, Webb, J and Pearce, CM (2013) Filtration of sea louse, Lepeophtheirus salmonis, copepodids by the blue mussel, Mytilus edulis, and the Atlantic sea scallop, Placopecten magellanicus, under different flow, light and copepodid-density regimes. Journal of Fish Diseases 36(3), 361370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, ON (1953) Immunity of fish occurring in infections with Ichthyophthirius multifiliis Fouquet, 1876. Dokla Novaia erviia 93, 377379. [In Russian.]Google Scholar
Begg, GA and Waldman, JR (1999) An holistic approach to fish stock identification. Fisheries Research 43(1–3), 3544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergh, O, Nilsen, F and Samuelsen, OB (2001) Diseases, prophylaxis and treatment of the Atlantic halibut Hippoglossus hippoglossus: a review. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 48(1), 5774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berland, B and Margolis, L (1983) The early history of ‘Lakselus’ and some nomenclatural questions relating to copepod parasites of salmon. Sarsia 68(4), 281288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beverley-Burton, M (1978) Population genetics of Anisakis simplex (Nematoda: Ascaridoidea) in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and their use as biological indicators of host stocks. Environmental Biology of Fishes 3(1), 369377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bjordal, A (1991) Wrasse as cleaner-fish for farmed salmon. Progress in Underwater Science 16(1), 1728.Google Scholar
Braicovich, PE, Ieno, EN, Sáez, M, Despos, J and Timi, JT (2016) Assessing the role of host traits as drivers of the abundance of long-lived parasites in fish stock assessment studies. Journal of Fish Biology 89(5), 24192433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braicovich, PE, Irigoitia, MM, Bovcon, ND and Timi, JT (2021) Parasites of Percophis brasiliensis (Percophidae) benefited from fishery regulations: indicators of success for marine protected areas? Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 31(1), 139152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brickle, P, Randhawa, HS, Reid, MR, Lee, B, Shcherbich, Z and Arkhipkin, AI (2021) Otolith trace elemental analyses and parasites provide useful tools for the stock discrimination of Patagonotothen ramsayi (Regan, 1913) (Nototheniidae) on the southern Patagonian Shelf. Fisheries Research 244(1), 106129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchmann, K (2012) Pseudodactylogyrus anguillae and P. bini. pp. 209224. In Woo, PTK and Buchmann, K (Eds) Fish parasites: pathobiology and protection. Wallingford, UK, CABI.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchmann, K and Mehrdana, F (2016) Effects of anisakid nematodes Anisakis simplex (s.l.), Pseudoterranova decipiens (s.l.) and Contracaecum osculatum (s.l.) on fish and consumer health. Food and Waterborne Parasitology 4(4), 1322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchmann, K, Roepstorff, A and Waller, PJ (1992) Experimental selection of mebendazole resistant gill parasites from the European eel. Journal of Fish Diseases 15(5), 393400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchmann, K, Slotved, H-C and Dana, D (1993) Epidemiology of gill parasites from carp (Cyprinus carpio) in Indonesia and possible control methods. Aquaculture 118(1–2), 921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchmann, K, Nielsen, T, Mathiessen, H, Marana, MH, Duan, Y, Jørgensen, LG, Zuo, S, Karami, AM and Kania, PW (2022) Validation of two QTL associated with lower Ichthyophthirius multifiliis infection and delayed time-to-death in rainbow trout. Aquaculture Reports 23(3), 101078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bui, S, Geitung, L, Oppedal, F and Barrett, LT (2020) Salmon lice survive the straight shooter: a commercial scale sea cage trial of laser delousing. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 181(1), 105063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burka, JF, Fast, MD and Revie, CW (2012) Lepeophtheirus salmonis and Caligus rogercrosseyi. pp. 350370. In Woo, PTK and Buchmann, K (Eds) Fish parasites: pathobiology and protection. Wallingford, UK, CABI.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buschkiel, AL (1910) Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Ichthyophthirius multifiliis Fouquet [Contributions to the knowledge of Ichthyophthirius multifiliis Fouquet]. Archiv der Protistenkunde 21(1), 61102. [In German.]Google Scholar
Bychowsky, BE (1957) Monogenetic trematodes, their systematics and phylogeny. Leningrad, Izdatelstvo Akademiya Nauk SSSR (English translation American Institute of Biological Sciences, Washington, 1961).Google Scholar
Cadrin, SX, Friedland, KD and Waldman, JR (2005) Stock identification methods: applications in fishery science. Amsterdam, Elsevier Academic Press.Google Scholar
Canel, D, Levy, E, Braicovich, PE, Haimovici, M and Timi, JT (2021) Ontogenetic asynchrony in fish migrations may lead to disparate parasite assemblages: implications for its use as biological tags. Fisheries Research 239(5), 105941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cantatore, DMP and Timi, JT (2015) Marine parasites as biological tags in South American Atlantic waters, current status and perspectives. Parasitology 142(1), 524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Catalano, SR, Whittington, ID, Donnellan, SC and Gillanders, BM (2014) Parasites as biological tags to assess host population structure: guidelines, recent genetic advances and comments on a holistic approach. International Journal for Parasitology: Parasites and Wildlife 3(2), 220226.Google Scholar
Chettri, JK, Kuhn, JA, Jafaar, RM, Kania, PW, Møller, OS and Buchmann, K (2014) Epidermal response of rainbow trout to Ichthyobodo necator: immunohistochemical and gene expression studies indicate a Th1-/Th2-like switch. Journal of Fish Diseases 37(9), 771783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, TG, Lin, T and Dickerson, HW (1996) Surface antigen cross-linking triggers forced exit of a protozoan parasite from its host. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 93(13), 68256829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claudet, J and Guidetti, P (2010) Improving assessments of marine protected areas. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 20(2), 239242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa-Pierce, BA (2022) The anthropology of aquaculture. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 6(1), 843743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costello, C, Ovando, D, Hilborn, R, Gaines, SD, Deschenes, O and Lester, SE (2012) Status and solutions for the world's unassessed fisheries. Science 338(6106), 517520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Criscione, CD, Poulin, R and Blouin, MS (2005) Molecular ecology of parasites: elucidating ecological and microevolutionary processes. Molecular Ecology 14(8), 22472257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Criscione, CD, Cooper, B and Blouin, MS (2006) Parasite genotypes identify source populations of migratory fish more accurately than fish genotypes. Ecology 87(4), 823828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, ML and Matthews, RA (1993) Localized leukocyte response to Ichthyophthirius multifiliis establishment in immune carp. Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology 38(3–4), 341358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, MA, Collins, C, Campbell, N, Watts, PC, Chubb, JC, Cunningham, CO, HatWeld, EMC and MacKenzie, K (2007) Levels of intra-host and temporal sequence variation in a large CO1 sub-units from Anisakis simplex sensu stricto (Rudolphi 1809) (Nematoda: Anisakisdae): implications forfisheries management. Marine Biology 151(2), 695702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dadzie, S (1992) An overview of aquaculture in eastern Africa. Hydrobiologia 232(1), 99110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalgaard, MB, Nielsen, CV and Buchmann, K (2003) Comparative susceptibility of two races of Salmo salar (Baltic Lule river and AtlanticConon river strains) to infection with Gyrodactylus salaris. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 53(2), 173176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalvin, S, Jørgensen, LvG, Kania, PW, Grotmol, S, Buchmann, K and Øvergård, A-C (2020) Rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss responses to salmon louse Lepeophtheirus salmonis: from copepodid to adult stage. Fish & Shellfish Immunology 103(1), 200210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Moor, CL, Butterworth, DS and van der Lingen, CD (2017) The quantitative use of parasite data in multistock modelling of South African sardine (Sardinops sagax). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 74(11), 18951903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Silva, SS and Phuong, NT (2011) Striped catfish farming in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam: a tumultuous path to a global success. Reviews in Aquaculture 3(2), 4573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickerson, HW, Clark, TG and Leff, AA (1993) Serotypic variation among isolates of Ichthyophthirius multifiliis based on immobilization. Journal of Eukaryotic Microbiology 40(6), 816820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duan, Y, Jørgensen, LVG, Kania, PW, Al-Jubury, A, Karami, AM and Buchmann, K (2021) Eye fluke effects on Danish freshwater fish: field and experimental investigations. Journal of Fish Diseases 44(11), 17851798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engle, CR, Hanson, T and Kumar, G (2022) Economic history of U.S. catfish farming: lessons for growth and development of aquaculture. Aquaculture Economics and Management 26(1), 135.Google Scholar
Espínola-Novelo, JF and Oliva, ME (2021) Spatial and temporal variability of parasite communities: implications for fish stock identification. Fishes 6(4), 71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Food Safety Authority (2016) Malachite green in food. EFSA Journal 14(7). Available at https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.2903/j.efsa.2016.4530 (September 10th, 2022).Google Scholar
Ezenwa, VO (2004) Parasite infection rates of impala (Aepyceros melampus) infenced game reserves in relation to reserve characteristics. Biological Conservation 118(3), 397401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrer-Castelló, E, Raga, JA and Aznar, FJ (2007) Parasites as fish population tags and pseudoreplication problems: the case of striped red mullet Mullus surmuletus in the Spanish Mediterranean. Journal of Helminthology 81(2), 169178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fioravanti, ML, Gustinelli, A, Rigos, G, Buchmann, K, Caffara, M, Pascual, S and Pardo, MA (2021) Neglible risk of zoonotic anisakid nematodes in farmed fish from European mariculture, 2016–2018. Eurosurveillance 26(2), pii=1900717.Google Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2020) The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2020. Sustainability in action. Rome, FAO.Google Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2022) The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2022. Towards blue transformation. Rome, FAO.Google Scholar
Fouquet, D (1876) Note sur une espece d'infusoires parasites des poisons d'eau douce [Note on a species of infusoria parasites of freshwater fishes]. Archives de Zoologie Expérimentale et Générale. Histoire Naturelle, Morphologie, Histologie, Evolution des Animaux 5(1), 159165. [In French.]Google Scholar
Gandon, S and Michalakis, Y (2002) Local adaptation, evolutionary potential and host–parasite coevolution: interactions between migration, mutation, population size and generation time. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 15(3), 451462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gay, M, Bao, M, MacKenzie, K, et al. (2018) Infection levels and species diversity of ascaridoid nematodes in Atlantic cod, Gadus morhua, are correlated with geographic area and fish size. Fisheries Research 202(1), 90102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geitung, L, Oppedal, F, Stien, LH, Dempster, T, Karlsbakk, E, Nola, V and Wright, DW (2019) Snorkel sea-cage technology decreases salmon louse infestation by 75% in a full-cycle commercial test. International Journal for Parasitology 49(11), 843846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentry, RR, Froehlich, HE, Grimm, D, Kareiva, P, Parke, M, Rust, M, Gaines, SD and Halpern, BS (2017) Mapping the global potential for marine aquaculture. Nature Ecology & Evolution 1(9), 8.Google Scholar
George-Nascimento, M and Oliva, M (2015) Fish population studies using parasites from the Southeastern Pacific Ocean: considering host population changes and species body size as sources of variability of parasite communities. Parasitology 142(1), 2535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geraerts, M, Huyse, T, Barson, M, et al. (2022) Mosaic or melting pot: the use of monogeneans as a biological tag and magnifying glass to discriminate introduced populations of Nile tilapia in sub-Saharan Africa. Genomics 114(3), 110328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gérard, C, Hervé, MR, Hamel, H, Gay, M, Barbier, M and Barreau, T (2022) Metazoan parasite community as a potential biological indicator in juveniles of the starry smooth-hound Mustelus asterias Cloquet, 1819 (Carcharhiniformes Triakidae). Aquatic Living Resources 35(1), 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gharbi, K, Glover, KA, Stone, LC, MacDonald, ES, Matthews, L and Grimholt, U (2009) Genetic dissection of MHC-associated susceptibility to Lepeophtheirus salmonis in Atlantic salmon. BMC Genetics 10(1), 20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbey, J, Verspoor, E, Mo, TA, Sterud, E, Olstad, K and Hytterød, S (2006) Identification of genetic markers associated with Gyrodactylus salaris resistance in Atlantic salmon Salmo salar. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 71(2), 119129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gjedrem, T (1986) Past and future and overview. pp. 120. In Gjedrem, T (Ed.) Fish aquaculture with a future. Oslo, Norway, Landbruksforlaget.Google Scholar
Glover, KA, Stølen, AB, Messmer, A, Koop, BF, Torrissen, O and Nilsen, F (2011) Population genetic structure of the parasitic copepod Lepeophtheirus salmonis throughout the Atlantic. Marine Ecology Progress Series 427(1), 161172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonzales, SF, Nielsen, ME and Buchmann, K (2007) Complement expression in common carp (Cyprinus carpio L.) during infection with Ichthyophthirius multifiliis. Developmental and Comparative Immunology 31(6), 576586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goven, BA, Gilbert, JP and Gratzek, JB (1980) Apparent drug resistance to the organophospate dimethyl (2,2,2-trichloro-1-hydroxyethyl) phosphonate by the monogenetic trematodes. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 16(3), 343346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gratzek, JB, Gilbert, JP, Lohr, AL, Shotts, EB and Brown, J (1983) Ultraviolet light control of Ichthyophthirius multifiliis Fouquet in a closed fish culture recirculation system. Journal of Fish Diseases 6(2), 145153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groner, ML, Cox, R, Gettinby, G and Revie, CW (2013) Use of agent-based modelling to predict benefits of cleaner fish in controlling sea lice, Lepeophtheirus salmonis, infestations on farmed Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L. Journal of Fish Diseases 36(3), 195208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harðardottir, HM, Male, R, Nilsen, F and Dalvin, S (2019) Effects of chitin synthesis inhibitor treatment on Lepeophtheirus salmonis (Copepoda, Caligidae) larvae. PLoS One 14(9), e0222520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hechinger, RF and Lafferty, KD (2005) Host diversity begets parasite diversity: bird final hosts and trematodes in snail intermediate hosts. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 272(1567), 10591066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinecke, RD and Buchmann, K (2009) Control of Ichthyophthirius multifiliis using a combination of water filtration and sodium percarbonate: dose–response studies. Aquaculture 288(1), 3235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helgesen, KO, Aaen, SM, Romstad, H and Horsberg, TE (2015) First report of reduced sensitivity towards hydrogen peroxide in the salmon louse Lepeophtheirus salmonis in Norway. Aquaculture Reports 1(1), 3742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrington, WC, Bearse, HM and Firth, FE (1939) Observations on 748 the life history, occurrence and distribution of the redfish parasite Sphyrion lumpi. US Bureau of Fisheries Special Report 5(1), 118.Google Scholar
Hesse, A (1923) Description of Capillaria leucisci, n. sp., found in the intestine of Leuciscus phoxinus Linn. Journal of Helminthology 1(2), 6570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hines, RS and Spira, DT (1973) Ichthyophthiriasis in the mirror carp. II Leukocyte response. Journal of Fish Biology 5(4), 527534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hines, RS and Spira, DT (1974) Ichthyophthirius multifiliis (Fouquet) in the mirror carp, Cyprinus carpio L.V. Acquired immunity. Journal of Fish Biology 6(4), 373378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofer, B (1904) Handbuch der fischkrankheiten [Manual of fish diseases]. pp. 1359. München, Germany, Allgemeine Fisch-Zeitung. [In German.]Google Scholar
Holzer, AS, Carla Piazzon, M, Barrett, D, Bartholomew, JL and Sitjà-Bobadilla, A (2021) To react or not to react: the dilemma of fish immune systems facing myxozoan infections. Frontiers in Immunology 12(1), 734238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huspeni, TC and Lafferty, K (2004) Using larval trematodes that parasitize snails to evaluate a saltmarsh restoration project. Ecological Applications 14(3), 795804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huyse, T, Oeyen, M, Larmuseau, MH and Volckaert, FA (2017) Co-phylogeographic study of the flatworm Gyrodactylus gondae and its goby host Pomatoschistus minutus. Parasitology International 66(2), 119125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imsland, AK, Reynolds, P, Eliassen, G, Hangstad, TA, Foss, A, Vikingstad, E and Elvegård, TA (2014) The use of lumpfish (Cyclopterus lumpus L.) to control sea lice (Lepeophtheirus salmonis Krøyer) infestations in intensively farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.). Aquaculture 424(1), 1823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irigoitia, MM, Incorvaia, IS and Timi, JT (2017) Evaluating the usefulness of natural tags for host population structure in chondrichthyans: parasite assemblages of Sympterygia bonapartii (Rajiformes: Arhynchobatidae) in the Southwestern Atlantic. Fisheries Research 195(1), 8090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irigoitia, MM, Levy, E, Canel, D and Timi, JT (2022) Parasites as tags for stock identification of a highly exploited vulnerable skate Dipturus brevicaudatus (Chondrichthyes: Rajidae) in the south-western Atlantic Ocean, a complementary tool for its conservation. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 32(10), 16341646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isbert, W, Rodríguez-Cabello, C, Frutos, I, Preciado, I, Montero, FE and Pérez-del-Olmo, A (2015) Metazoan parasite communities and diet of the velvet belly lantern shark Etmopterus spinax (Squaliformes: Etmopteridae): a comparison of two deep-sea ecosystems. Journal of Fish Biology 86(2), 687706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isbert, W, Montero, FE, Pérez-del-Olmo, A, López-Sans, A, Reñones, O and Orejas, C (2018) Parasite communities of the white seabream Diplodus sargus sargus in the marine protected area of Medes Islands, north-west Mediterranean Sea. Journal of Fish Biology 93(4), 586596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaafar, R, Ødegård, J, Mathiessen, H, et al. (2020) Quantitative trait loci (QTL) associated with resistance of rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss against the parasitic ciliate Ichthyophthirius multifiliis. Journal of Fish Diseases 43(12), 15911602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jahn, TL and Kuhn, LR (1932) The life history of Epibdella melleni Maccallum, 1927 a monogenetic trematode parasitic on marine fishes. Biological Bulletin, Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole 62(1), 89111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jørgensen, LvG, Heinecke, RD, Skjoedt, K, Rasmussen, KJ and Buchmann, K (2011) Experimental evidence for direct in situ binding of IgM and IgT to early trophonts of Ichthyophthirius multifiliis (Fouquet) in the gills of rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss (Walbaum). Journal of Fish Diseases 34(10), 749755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jørgensen, LvG, Sigh, J, Kania, WP, Holten-Andersen, L, Buchmann, K, Clark, T, Rasmussen, JS, Einer-Jensen, K and Lorenzen, N (2012) Approaches towards DNA vaccination against a skin ciliate parasite in fish. PLoS One 7(11), e48129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jørgensen, LvG, Kania, PW, Rasmussen, KJ, Mattsson, AH, Schmidt, J, Al-Jubury, A, Sander, A, Salanti, A and Buchmann, K (2017) Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) immune response towards a recombinant vaccine targeting the parasitic ciliate Ichthyophthirius multifiliis. Journal of Fish Diseases 40(12), 18151821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Justine, JL (1993) Phylogénie des monogènes basée sur une analyse de parcimonie des caractères de l'ultrastructure de la spermiogenèse et des spermatozoïdes incluant les résultats récents [Phylogeny of the Monogenea based upon a parsimony analysis of characters of spermiogenesis and spermatozoon ultrastructure including recent results]. Bulletin Français de la Pêche et de la Pisciculture 328(1), 137155. [In French.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kabata, Z (1963) Parasites as biological tags. International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries, Special Publication 4(1), 3137.Google Scholar
Kabata, Z (1979) Parasitic copepod of British fishes. London, UK, The Ray Society.Google Scholar
Karvonen, A and Marcogliese, DJ (2020) Diplostomiasis (Diplostomum spathaceum and related species). pp. 261269. In Woo, PTK, Leong, JA and Buchmann, K (Eds) Climate change and infectious fish diseases. Wallingford, UK, CAB International.Google Scholar
Kaur, K, Jansen, PA, Aspehaug, VT and Horsberg, TE (2016) Phe 362Tyr in AChE: a major factor responsible for Azamethiphos resistance in Lepeophtheirus salmonis in Norway. PLoS One 11(2), e0149264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khalil, M (1923) A preliminary note on the second intermediate host of Heterophyes in Egypt. Journal of Helminthology 1(3), 141142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, KH and Cho, JB (2000) Treatment of Microcotyle sebastis (Monogenea: Polyopisthocotylea) infestation with praziquantel in an experimental cage simulating commercial rockfish Sebastes schlegeli culture conditions. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 40(3), 229231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, KH, Hwang, YJ, Cho, JB and Park, SI (2000) Immunization of cultured rockfish Sebastes schlegeli against Microcotyle sebastis (Monogenea). Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 40(1), 2932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kimura, T, Nomura, Y, Kawakami, H, Itano, T, Iwasaki, M, Morita, J and Enomoto, J (2009) Field trials of febantel against gill fluke disease caused by the monogenean Heterobothrium okamotoi in cultured tiger puffer Takifugu rubripes. Fish Pathology 44(2), 6771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klapper, R, Kochmann, J, O'Hara, RB, Karl, H and Kuhn, T (2016) Parasites as biological tags for stock discrimination of beaked redfish (Sebastes mentella): parasite infra-communities vs. limited resolution of cytochrome markers. PLoS One 11(4), e0153964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kobayashi, H (1923) A distomid larva infesting the Egyptian mullet. Journal of Helminthology 1(3), 9798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korbut, R, Skjolding, LM, Mathiessen, H, Jaafar, R, Li, X, Jørgensen, LVG, Kania, PW, Wu, B and Buchmann, K (2022) Toxicity of the antiparasitic lipopeptide biosurfactant SPH6 to green algae, cyanobacteria, crustaceans and zebrafish. Aquatic Toxicology 243(1), 106072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kritsky, DC and Boeger, WA (2002) Neotropical Monogenoidea. 41. New and previously described species of Dactylogyridae (Platyhelminthes) from the gills of marine and freshwater perciform fishes (Teleostei) with proposal of a new genus and a hypothesis on phylogeny. Zoosystema 24(1), 740.Google Scholar
Krøyer, HN (1838) Om snyltekrebsene især med hensyn til den danske fauna [On the parasitic crustaceans with special emphasis on the Danish Fauna]. Naturhistorisk Tidsskrift I and II, 1608. [In Danish.]Google Scholar
Kumar, P, Khar, S, Dwivedi, S, Sharma, SK and Himabindu, SK (2015) An overview of fisheries and aquaculture in India. Agro Economist – An International Journal 2(2), 16.Google Scholar
Lafferty, KD, Shaw, JC and Kuris, AM (2008) Reef fishes have higher parasite richness at unfished Palmyra Atoll compared to fished Kiritimati Island. EcoHealth 5(3), 338345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamas, J, Sanmartin, ML, Parama, AI, Castro, R and Cabaleiro, S (2008) Optimization of an inactivated vaccine against a scuticociliate parasite of turbot: effect of antigen, formalin and adjuvant concentration on antibody response and protection against the pathogen. Aquaculture 278(1–4), 2226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lanfranchi, AL, Braicovich, PE, Cantatore, DMP, Alarcos, AJ, Luque, JL and Timi, JT (2016) Ecotonal marine regions – ecotonal parasite communities: helminth assemblages in the convergence of masses of water in the southwestern Atlantic Ocean. International Journal for Parasitology 46(12), 809818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lanfranchi, AL, Braicovich, PE, Cantatore, DM, Irigoitia, MM, Farber, MD, Taglioretti, V and Timi, JT (2018) Influence of confluent marine currents in an ecotonal region of the South-West Atlantic on the distribution of larval anisakids (Nematoda: Anisakidae). Parasites & Vectors 11(1), 113.Google Scholar
Lebarbenchon, C, Poulin, R, Gauthier-Clerc, M and Thomas, F (2007) Parasitological consequences of overcrowding in protected areas. EcoHealth 3(4), 303307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lees, F, Baillie, M, Gettinby, G and Revie, CW (2008) The efficacy of emamectin benzoate against infestation of Lepeophtheirus salmonis on farmed Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar, in Scotland between 2002 and 2006. PLoS One 3(2), e1549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lefebvre, F, Fazio, G and Crivelli, A (2012) Anguillicoloides crassus. pp. 310326. In Woo, PTK and Buchmann, K (Eds) Fish parasites: pathobiology and protection. Wallingford, UK, CABI.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lester, RJG (1990) Reappraisal of the use of parasites for fish stock identification. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 41(6), 855864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lester, RJG and MacKenzie, K (2009) The use and abuse of parasites as stock markers for fish. Fisherires Research 97(1–2), 12.Google Scholar
Lester, RJG and Moore, BR (2015) Parasites as valuable stock markers for fisheries in Australasia, East Asia and the Pacific Islands. Parasitology 142(1), 3653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lester, SE, Halpern, BS, Grorud-Colvert, K, Lubchenco, J, Ruttenberg, BI, Gaines, SD, Airamé, S and Warner, RR (2009) Biological effects within no-take marine reserves: a global synthesis. Marine Ecology Progress Series 384(1), 3346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, E, Canel, D, Rossin, MA, Hernández-Orts, J, González-Castro, M and Timi, JT (2019) Parasites as indicators of fish population structure at two different geographical scales in contrasting coastal environments of the south-western Atlantic. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 229(3), 106400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, P (2007) Editorial. Journal of Helminthology 81(1), 105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, X, He, Y, Jaafar, R, Kania, PW and Buchmann, K (2022) Effects of a Pseudomonas H6 surfactant on rainbow trout and Ichthyophthirius multifiliis: in vivo exposure. Aquaculture 547(1), 737479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, D, Hua, Y, Zhang, Q, Xu, D, Fu, Y, Liu, Y and Zhou, S (2016) Evaluation of medicated feeds with antiparasitical and immune-enhanced Chinese herbal medicines against Ichthyophthirius multifiliis in grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idellus). Parasitology Research 115(6), 24732483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindenstrøm, T, Sigh, J, Dalgaard, MB and Buchmann, K (2006) Skin expression of IL-1beta in East Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., highly susceptible to Gyrodactylus salaris infection is enhanced compared to a low susceptibility Baltic stock. Journal of Fish Diseases 29(2), 123128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Llewellyn, J (1965) The evolution of parasitic platyhelminths. pp. 47–78. In Taylor AER (Ed.) Evolution of parasites. Third Symposium of the British Society for Parasitology, London 6 November 1964. London, British Society for Parasitology.Google Scholar
Lom, J and Dykova, I (1992) Protozoan parasites of fishes. Developments in aquaculture fisheries science 26. Amsterdam, London, New York, Tokyo, Elsevier.Google Scholar
Loot, G, Aldana, M and Navarrete, SA (2005) Effects of human exclusion on parasitism in intertidal food webs of central Chile. Conservation Biology 19(1), 203212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lubchenco, J, Palumbi, SR, Gaines, SD and Andelman, S (2003) Plugging a hole in the ocean: the emerging science of marine reserves. Ecological Applications 13(1), 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKenzie, K (1983) Parasites as biological tags in fish population studies. Advances in Applied Biology 7(1), 251331.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, K (1987) Parasites as indicators of host populations. International Journal for Parasitology 17(2), 345352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKenzie, K (1993) Parasites as biological indicators. Bulletin of the Scandinavian Society of Parasitology 1(1), 110.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, K (1999) Parasites as biological tags in population studies of marine organisms. Qatar University Scientific Journal 19(1), 117127.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, K (2002) Parasites as biological tags in population studies of marine organisms: an update. Parasitology 124(Suppl 1), S153S163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKenzie, K and Abaunza, P (1998) Parasites as biological tags for stock discrimination of marine fish: a guide to procedures and methods. Fisheries Research 38(1), 4556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKenzie, K and Abaunza, P (2014) Parasites as biological tags. pp. 185204. In Cadrin, SX, Kerr, LA and Mariani, S (Eds) Stock identification methods. Applications in fisheries science. 2nd edn. San Diego, USA, Elsevier Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKenzie, K and Hemmingsen, W (2015) Parasites as biological tags in marine fisheries research: European Atlantic waters. Parasitology 142(1), 5467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madsen, H, Nguyen, HM, Lanza, GR and Stauffer, JR Jr (2022) A one health approach relative to trematode-caused diseases of people and animals associated with aquaculture. Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture 30(4), 542–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malmberg, G (1957) On the occurrence of Gyrodactylus on Swedish fishes. Skrifter Södra Sveriges Fiskeriforening. Årsskrift 1956(1), 1976.Google Scholar
Manel, S, Berthier, P and Luikart, G (2002) Detecting wildlife poaching: identifying the origin of individuals with Bayesian assignment tests and multilocus genotypes. Conservation Biology 16(3), 650659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manel, S, Gaggiotti, OE and Waples, RS (2005) Assignment methods: matching biological questions with appropriate techniques. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 20(3), 136142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcogliese, DJ and Jacobson, KC (2015) Parasites as biological tags of marine, freshwater and anadromous fishes in North America from the tropics to the Arctic. Parasitology 142(1), 6889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marigo, J, Cunha, HA, Bertozzi, CP, et al. (2013) Genetic diversity and population structure of Synthesium pontoporiae (Digenea, Brachycladiidae) linked to its definitive host stocks, the endangered Franciscana dolphin, Pontoporia blainvillei (Pontoporiidae) off the coast of Brazil and Argentina. Journal of Helminthology 89(1), 1927.Google Scholar
Marzoug, D, Boutiba, Z, Kostadinova, A and Pérez-del-Olmo, A (2012) Effects of fishing on parasitism in a sparid fish: contrasts between two areas of the Western Mediterranean. Parasitology International 61(3), 414420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathiessen, H, Jaafar, R, Al-Jubury, A, Jørgensen, LVG, Kania, PW and Buchmann, K (2021a) Comparative in vitro and in vivo effects of feed additives on rainbow trout response to Ichthyophthirius multifiliis. North American Journal of Aquaculture 83(2), 6777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathiessen, H, Marana, MH, Korbut, R, Wu, B, Al-Jubury, A, Karami, AM, Kania, PW and Buchmann, K (2021b) Inflammatory reactions in rainbow trout fins and gills exposed to biocides. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 146(1), 921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattiucci, S and Nascetti, G (2007) Genetic diversity and infection levels of anisakid nematodes parasitic in fish and marine mammals from Boreal and Austral hemispheres. Veterinary Parasitology 148(1), 4357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattiucci, S and Nascetti, G (2008) Advances and trends in the molecular systematics of anisakid nematodes, with implications for their evolutionary ecology and host–parasite co-evolutionary processes. Advances in Parasitology 66(1), 47148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattiucci, S, Abaunza, P, Ramadori, L and Nascetti, G (2004) Genetic identification of Anisakis larvae in European hake from Atlantic and Mediterranean waters for stock recognition. Journal of Fish Biology 65(2), 495510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattiucci, S, Farina, V, Campbell, N, MacKenzie, K, Ramos, P, Pinto, AL, Abaunza, P and Nascetti, G (2008) Anisakis spp. larvae (Nematoda: Anisakidae) from Atlantic horse mackerel: their genetic identification and use as biological tags for host stock characterization. Fisheries Research 89(2), 146151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattiucci, S, Cimmaruta, R, Cipriani, P, Abaunza, P, Bellisario, B and Nascetti, G (2015) Integrating Anisakis spp. parasites data and host genetic structure in the frame of a holistic approach for stock identification of selected Mediterranean Sea fish species. Parasitology 142(1), 90108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattiucci, S, Paoletti, M, Cipriani, P, Webb, SC, Timi, JT and Nascetti, G (2017) Inventorying biodiversity of anisakid nematodes from the Austral Region: a hotspot of genetic diversity? pp. 109140. In Klimpel, S, Kuhn, T and Melhorn, H (Eds) Biodiversity and evolution of parasitic life in the Southern Ocean. Cham, Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattiucci, S, Giulietti, L, Paoletti, M, et al. (2018) Population genetic structure of the parasite Anisakis simplex (s. s.) collected in Clupea harengus L. from North East Atlantic fishing grounds. Fisheries Research 202(1), 103111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCallum, H, Gerber, L and Jani, A (2005) Does infectious disease influence the efficacy of marine protected areas? A theoretical framework. Journal of Applied Ecology 42(4), 688698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClelland, G, Melendy, J, Osborne, J, Reid, D and Douglas, S (2005) Use of parasite and genetic markers in delineating populations of winter flounder from the central and south-west Scotian Shelf and north-east Gulf of Maine. Journal of Fish Biology 66(4), 10821100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meinelt, TS, Matzke, S, Stüber, A, Pietrock, M, Wienke, A, Mitchell, AJ and Straus, DL (2009) Toxicity of peracetic acid (PAA) to tomonts of Ichthyophthirius multifiliis. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 86(1), 5156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Messmer, AM, Rondeau, EB, Jantzen, SG, Lubieniecki, KP, Davidson, WS and Koop, BG (2011) Assessment of population structure in Pacific Lepeophtheirus salmonis (Krøyer) using single nucleotide polymorphism and microsatellite genetic markers. Aquaculture 320(3–4), 183192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mladineo, I, Hrabar, J, Vidjak, O, et al. (2020) Host–parasite interaction between parasitic cymothoid Ceratothoa oestroides and its host, farmed european sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax). Pathogens 9(3), 230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mo, TA (2020) Gyrodactylosis (Gyrodactylus salaris). pp. 404424. In Woo, PTK, Leong, J-A and Buchmann, K (Eds) Climate change and infectious fish diseases. Wallingford, UK, CAB International.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohamed, A, Zuo, S, Karami, AM, Marnis, H, Setyawan, A, Mehrdana, F, Kirkeby, C, Kania, P and Buchmann, K (2020) Contracaecum osculatum (sensu lato) infection of Gadus morhua in the Baltic Sea: inter- and intraspecific interactions. International Journal for Parasitology 50(10–11), 891898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Møller, OS (2012) Argulus foliaceus. pp. 327336. In Woo, PTK and Buchmann, K (Eds) Fish parasites: pathobiology and protection. Wallingford, UK, CABI.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molnar, K (1984) Occurrence of new monogeneans of far east origin on the gills of fish in Hungary. Acta Veterinariae Hungaricae 32(1), 153157.Google Scholar
Moser, M (1991) Parasites as biological tags. Parasitology Today 7(1), 8185.Google Scholar
Mosquera, J, De Castro, M and Gómez-Gesteira, M (2003) Parasites as biological tags of fish populations: advantages and limitations. Comments on Theoretical Biology 8(1), 6991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, OF (1776) Zoologia Danica: prodromus [Danish zoology: prodromus]. Copenhagen, Denmark, Müller OF, 274 pp. [In Latin.]Google Scholar
Mwainge, VM, Ogwai, C, Aura, CM, Mutie, A, Ombwa, V, Nyaboke, H, Oyier, KN and Nyyaudi, J (2021) An overview of fish disease and parasite occurrence in the cage culture of Oreochromis niloticus: a case study in Lake Victoria, Kenya. Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management 24(1), 4355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Navarro-Barranco, C, Tierno de Figueroa, JM, Ros, M and Guerra García, JM (2019) Influence of Marine Protected Areas on parasitic prevalence: the case of the isopod Anilocra physodes as a parasite of the fish Lithognathus mormyrus. Journal of Zoology 308(4), 280292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nieberding, CM and Olivieri, I (2007) Parasites: proxies for host genealogy and ecology? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 22(2–3), 156165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nieberding, C, Morand, S, Libois, R and Michaux, JR (2004) A parasite reveals cryptic phylogeographic history of its host. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 271(1557), 25592568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nigrelli, RF and Breder, CM (1934) The susceptibility and immunity of certain fishes to Epibdella melleni, a monogenetic trematode. Journal of Parasitology 20(2), 259269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niklitschek, EJ, Secor, DH, Toledo, P, Lafon, A and George-Nascimento, M (2010) Segregation of SE Pacific and SW Atlantic southern blue whiting stocks: integrating evidence from complementary otolith microchemistry and parasite assemblage approaches. Environmental Biology of Fishes 89(3), 399413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordholm, A, Kurtzhals, JAL, Karami, AM, Kania, PW and Buchmann, K (2020) Nasal localization of a Pseudoterranova decipiens larva in a Danish patient with suspected allergic rhinitis. Journal of Helminthology 94(1), e187, 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordmann, VA (1832) Mikrographische beiträge zur naturgeschichte der wirbellosen thiere. I [Micrographic contributions to the natural history of invertebrates. I]. pp. 1118. Berlin, Gedruckt und verlegt bei G. Reimer. [In German.]Google Scholar
Nowak, B (2012) Neoparamoeba perurans. pp. 118. In Woo, PTK and Buchmann, K (Eds) Fish parasites: pathobiology and protection. Wallingford, UK, CABI.Google Scholar
Nowak, B, Valdenegro-Vega, V, Crosbie, P and Bridle, A (2014) Immunity to amoebae. Developmental & Comparative Immunology 43(2), 257267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogawa, K (2012) Heterobothrium okamotoi and Neoheterobothrium hirame. pp. 245259. In Woo, PTK and Buchmann, K (Eds) Fish parasites: pathobiology and protection. Wallingford, UK, CABI.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogawa, K and Yokoyama, H (1998) Parasitic diseases of cultured marine fish in Japan. Fish Pathology 33(4), 303309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, MM, Heinecke, RD, Skjødt, K, Rasmussen, KJ, Kania, P and Buchmann, K (2011) Cellular and humoral factors involved in the response of rainbow trout gills to Ichthyophthirius multifiliis infections: molecular and immunohistochemical studies. Fish and Shellfish Immunology 30(3), 859869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Shea, B, Wadsworth, S, Pino-Marambio, J, Birkett, MA, Pickett, JA and Mordue-Luntz, AJ (2016) Disruption of host-seeking behaviour by the salmon louse Lepeophtheirus salmonis, using botanically derived repellants. Journal of Fish Diseases 40(4), 495505.Google Scholar
Østevik, L, Stormoen, M, Evensen, Ø, et al. (2022) Effects of thermal and mechanical delousing on gill health of farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.). Aquaculture 552(1), 73801.Google Scholar
Ozaki, A, Yoshida, K, Fuji, K, Kubota, S, Kai, W and Aoki, J (2013) Quantitative trait loci (QTL) associated with resistance to a monogenean parasite (Benedenia seriolae) in yellowtail (Seriola quinqueradiata) through genome wide analysis. PLoS One 8(6), e64987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paperna, I (1964) Competitive exclusion of Dactylogyrus extensus by D. vastator (Trematoda, Monogenea) on the gills of reared carp. Journal of Parasitology 50(1), 9498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pascual, S and Hochberg, FG (1996) Marine parasites as biological tags of cephalopod hosts. Parasitology Today 12(8), 324327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pascual, S, Abollo, E and González, AF (2016) Biobanking and genetic markers for parasites in fish stock studies. Fisheries Research 173(3), 214220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelletier, D, Claudet, J, Ferraris, J, Benedetti-Cecchi, L and Garcìa-Charton, JA (2008) Models and indicators for assessing conservation and fisheries-related effects of marine protected areas. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 65(4), 765779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrushevski, GK and Shulman, SS (1961) Parasitic diseases of fishes in natural waters of the USSR. pp. 299319. In Dogiel, VA and Petrushevski, GK (Eds) Parasitology of fishes. Edingburgh, London, English translation, Oliver Boyd.Google Scholar
Picon-Camacho, SM, Marcos-Lopez, M and Shinn, AP (2012) An assessment of the use of drugs and non-drug intervention in the treatment of Ichthyophthirius multifiliis Fouquet, 1876, a protozoan parasite of freshwater fish. Parasitology 139(2), 149190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pita, A, Casey, J, Hawkins, SJ, et al. (2016) Conceptual and practical advances in fish stock delineation. Fisheries Research 173(3), 185193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plehn, M (1924) Praktikum der fischkrankeiten [Internship of fish diseases]. pp. 1179. Stuttgart, Germany, Schweizerbartsche Verlagsbuchhandlung. [In German.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poley, J, Purcell, SL, Igboeli, OO, Donkin, A, Wotton, H and Fast, MD (2013) Combinatorial effects of administration immunostimulatory compounds in feed and follow-up administration of triple-dose SLICE® (emamectin benzoate) on Atlantic salmon Salmo salar L., infection with Lepeophtheirus salmonis. Journal of Fish Diseases 36(3), 299309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomeroy, RS, Watson, LM, Parks, JE and Cid, GA (2005) How is your MPA doing? A methodology for evaluating the management effectiveness of marine protected areas. Ocean & Coastal Management 48(7–8), 485502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poulin, R and Kamiya, T (2015) Parasites as biological tags of fish stocks: a meta-analysis of their discriminatory power. Parasitology 142(1), 145–155.Google Scholar
Poulin, R and Leung, TLF (2010) Taxonomic resolution in parasite community studies: are things getting worse? Parasitology 137(13), 19671973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Power, C, Evenden, S, Rough, K, Webber, C, Widdicombe, M, Nowak, BF and Bott, NJ (2021) Prevalence and intensity of Cardicola spp. infection in ranched Southern Bluefin Tuna and a comparison of diagnostic methods. Pathogens 10(10), 1248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prost, M (1963) Investigations on the development of and pathogenicity of Dactyogyrus anchoratus (Duj. 1845) and D. extensus (Mueller et Van Cleave, 1932) for breeding carps. Acta Parasitologia Polonica 11(1), 1748.Google Scholar
Punt, AE, Dunn, A, Elvarsson, , Hampton, J, Hoyle, SD, Maunder, MN, Methot, RD and Nielsen, A (2020) Essential features of the next-generation integrated fisheries stock assessment package: a perspective. Fisheries Research 229(1), 105617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rach, JJ, Gaikowski, MP and Ramsay, RT (2000) Efficacy of hydrogen peroxide to control parasitic infestation on hatchery-reared fish. Journal of Aquatic Animal Health 12(4), 267273.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, CC (2015) A review of parasite studies of commercially important marine fishes in sub-Saharan Africa. Parasitology 142(1), 109124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rimmer, MA, Sugama, K, Rakhmawati, D, Rofiq, R and Habgood, RH (2013) A review and SWOT analysis of aquaculture development in Indonesia. Reviews in Aquaculture 5(4), 255279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rintamäki-Kinnunen, P, Rahkonen, M, Mannermaa-Keränen, AL, Suomalainen, LR, Mykrä, H and Valtonen, ET (2005) Treatment of ichthyophthiriasis after malachite green. I. Concrete tanks at salmonid farms. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 64(1), 6976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robledo, D, Guitierrez, AP, Barria, A, Lhorente, JP, Houston, RD and Yanez, JM (2019) Discovery and functional annotation of quantitative trait loci affecting resistance to sealice in Atlantic salmon. Frontiers in Genetics 10(1), 56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saksvik, M, Nilsen, F, Nylund, A and Berland, B (2001) Effect of a marine Eubothrium sp. (Cestoda: Pseudophyllidea) on the growth of Atlantic salmon Salmo salar. Journal of Fish Biology 24(2), 111119.Google Scholar
Sala, E and Giakoumi, S (2018) No-take marine reserves are the most effective protected areas in the ocean. ICES Journal of Marine Science 75(3), 11661168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sasal, P, Faliex, E and Morand, S (1996) Parasitism of Gobius bucchichii Steindachner, 1870 (Teleostei, Gobiidae) in protected and unprotected marine environments. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 32(4), 607613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sasal, P, Desdevises, Y, Durieux, E, Lenfant, P and Romans, P (2004) Parasites in marine protected areas: success and specificity of monogeneans. Journal of Fish Biology 64(2), 370379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmahl, G and Mehlhorn, H (1985) Treatment of fish parasites I. Praziquantel effective against monogenea (Dactylogyrus vastator, Dactylogyrus extensus, Diplozoon paradoxum). Zeitschrift für Parasitenkunde 71(6), 727737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scholz, T and Di Cave, D (1993) Bothriocephalus acheilognathi (Cestoda: Pseudophyllidea) parasite of freshwater fish in Italy. Parassitologia 34(1–3), 155158.Google Scholar
Scholz, T, Kuchta, R and Williams, C (2012) Bothriocephalus acheilognathi. pp. 282–297. In Woo, PTK and Buchmann, K (Eds) Fish parasites: pathobiology and protection. Wallingford, UK, CABI.Google Scholar
Sepúlveda, FA and González, MT (2015) Patterns of genetic variation and life history traits of Zeuxapta seriolae infesting Seriola lalandi across the coastal and oceanic areas in the southeastern Pacific Ocean: potential implications for aquaculture. Parasites & Vectors 8(1), 282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shinn, A, Picon-Camacho, S, Bawden, R and Taylor, N (2009) Mechanical control of Ichthyophthirius multifiliis Fouquet, 1876 (Ciliophora) in a rainbow trout hatchery. Aquacultural Engineering 41(3), 152157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shinn, AP, Pratoomyot, J, Bron, JE, Paladini, G, Brooker, EE and Brooker, AJ (2015) Economic costs of protistan and metazoan parasites to global mariculture. Parasitology 142(1), 196270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigh, J and Buchmann, K (2001) Comparison of immobilization assays and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for detection of rainbow trout antibody-titres against Ichthyophthirius multifiliis Fouquet, 1876. Journal of Fish Diseases 24(1), 4951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sindermann, CJ (1983) Parasites as natural tags for marine fish: a review. NAFO Scientific Council Studies 6(1), 6371.Google Scholar
Sitjà-Bobadilla, A, Felipe, MC and Alvarez-Pellitero, P (2006) In vivo and in vitro treatments against Sparicotyle chrysophrii (Monogenea: Microcotylidae) parasitizing the gills of gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata L.). Aquaculture 261(3), 856864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sitjà-Bobadilla, A, Diamant, A, Palenzuela, O and Alvarez-Pellitero, P (2007) Effect of host factors and environmental conditions on on the horizontal transmission of Enteromyxum leei (Myxozoa) to gilthead seabream Sparus aurata L., and European seabass, Dicentrarhus labrax (L.). Journal of Fish Diseases 30(4), 243250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skov, J, Kania, PM, Jørgensen, TR and Buchmann, K (2008) Molecular and morphometric study of metacercariae and adults of Pseudamphistomum truncatum (Opisthorchiidae) from roach Rutilus rutilus and wild American mink Mustela vison. Veterinary Parasitology 155(3–4), 209216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skov, J, Kania, PW, Dalsgaard, A, Jørgensen, TR and Buchmann, K (2009) Life cycle stages of heterophyid trematodes in Vietnamese freshwater fishes traced by molecular and morphometric methods. Veterinary Parasitology 160(1–2), 6675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snieszko, SF (1975) History and present status of fish diseases. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 11, 446459.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soares, IA, Lanfranchi, AL, Luque, JL, Haimovici, M and Timi, JT (2018) Are different parasite guilds of Pagrus pagrus equally suitable sources of information on host zoogeography? Parasitology Research 117(6), 18651875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sterud, E, Mo, TA and Poppe, TT (1998) Systemic spironucleosis in sea-farmed Atlantic salmon Salmo salar, caused by Spironucleus barkhanus transmitted from feral Arctic charr Salvelinus alpinus. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 33(1), 6366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, J, Roy, WJ, Sutherland, IH, Ferguson, HW, Sommerville, C and Endris, R (2002) Safety and efficacy of emamectin benzoate administered in-feed to Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., smolts in freshwater as a preventive treatment against infestations of sea lice, Lepeophtheirus salmonis (Krøyer). Aquaculture 210(1–4), 2134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Straus, DL (1993) Prevention of Ichthyophthirius multifiliis infestation in catfish fingerlings by copper sulphate treatment. Journal of Aquatic Animal Health 5(2), 152154.2.3.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Straus, DL and Griffin, B (2001) Prevention of an initial infestation of Ichthyophthirius multifiliis in channel catfish and blue tilapia by potassium permanganate treatment. North American Journal of Aquaculture 63(1), 1116.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strøm, SB, Haarder, S, Korbut, R, Mejer, H, Thamsborg, SM, Kania, PW and Buchmann, K (2015) Third-stage nematode larvae of Contracaecum osculatum from Baltic cod (Gadus morhua) elicit eosinophilic granulomatous reactions when penetrating the stomach mucosa of pigs. Parasitology Research 114(3), 12171220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sumaila, UR and Tai, TC (2020) End overfishing and increase the resilience of the ocean to climate change. Frontiers in Marine Science 7(1), 523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Syahputra, K, Kania, PW, Al-Jubury, A, Jafaar, RM, Dirks, RP and Buchmann, K (2019) Transcriptomic analysis of immunity in rainbow trout (Oncorhyncus mykiss) gills infected by Ichthyophthirius multifiliis. Fish & Shellfish Immunology 86(3), 486496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szekely, C and Molnar, K (1987) Mebendazole is an efficacious drug against pseudodactylogyrosis in the European eel (Anguilla anguilla). Journal of Applied Ichthyology 3(4), 183186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Székely, C, Borkhanuddin, MH, Cech, G, Kelemen, O and Molnár, K (2014) Life cycles of three Myxobolus spp. from cyprinid fishes of Lake Balaton, Hungary involve triactinomyxon-type actinospores. Parasitology Research 113(8), 28172825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taillebois, L, Barton, DP, Crook, DA, et al. (2017) Strong population structure deduced from genetics, otolith chemistry and parasite abundances explains vulnerability to localized fishery collapse in a large Sciaenid fish, Protonibea diacanthus. Evolutionary Applications 10(10), 978993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takano, T, Iwaki, T, Waki, T, Murata, R, Suzuki, J, Kodo, Y, Kobayashi, K and Ogawa, K (2021) Species composition and infection levels of Anisakis (Nematoda: Anisakidae) in the skipjack tuna Katsuwonus pelamis (Linnaeus) in the Northwest Pacific. Parasitology Research 120(5), 16051615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tartor, H, Karlsen, M, Skern-Mauritzen, R, et al. (2022) Protective immunization of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) against salmon lice (Lepeophtheirus salmonis) infestation. Vaccines 10(1), 16.Google Scholar
Ternengo, S, Levron, C, Mouillot, D and Marchand, B (2009) Site influence in parasite distribution from fishes of the Bonifacio Strait Marine Reserve (Corsica Island, Mediterranean Sea). Parasitology Research 104(6), 12791287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timi, JT (2007) Parasites as biological tags for stock discrimination in marine fish from South American Atlantic waters. Journal of Helminthology 81(2), 107111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timi, JT and Mackenzie, K (2015) Parasites in fisheries and mariculture. Parasitology 142(1), 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timi, JT and Poulin, R (2020) Why ignoring parasites in fish ecology is a mistake. International Journal for Parasitology 50(10–11), 755761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timi, JT, Luque, JL and Poulin, R (2010) Host ontogeny and the temporal decay of similarity in parasite communities of marine fish. International Journal for Parasitology 40(8), 963968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timi, JT, Rossin, MA, Alarcos, AJ, Braicovich, PE, Cantatore, DMP and Lanfranchi, AL (2011) Fish trophic level and the similarity of larval parasite assemblages. International Journal for Parasitology 41(3–4), 309316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torrissen, O, Jones, S, Asche, F, Guttormsen, A, Skilbrei, OT, Nilsen, F, Horsberg, TE and Jackson, D (2013) Salmon lice – impact on wild salmonids and salmon aquaculture. Journal of Fish Diseases 36(3), 171194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valenti, WC, Barros, HP, Moraes-Valenti, P, Bueno, GW and Cavalli, RO (2021) Aquaculture in Brazil: past, present and future. Aquaculture Reports 19(1), 100611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Lingen, CD, Weston, LF, Ssempa, NN and Reed, CC (2015) Incorporating parasite data in population structure studies of South African sardine Sardinops sagax. Parasitology 142(1), 156167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vasilyeva, LM, Elhetawy, AIG, Sudakova, NV and Astafyeva, SS (2019) History, current status and prospects of sturgeon aquaculture in Russia. Aquaculture Research 50(4), 979993.Google Scholar
Watson, JE, Dudley, N, Segan, DB and Hockings, M (2014) The performance and potential of protected areas. Nature 515(7525), 6773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welch, DJ, Newman, SJ, Buckworth, RC, et al. (2015) Integrating different approaches in the definition of biological stocks: a northern Australian multi-jurisdictional fisheries example using grey mackerel, Scomberomorus semifasciatus. Marine Policy 55(1), 7380.Google Scholar
White, HC (1940) Sea lice (Lepeophtheirus) and death of salmon. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 5(2), 172175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whiteman, NK and Parker, PG (2005) Using parasites to infer host population history: a new rationale for parasite conservation. Animal Conservation 8(2), 175181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittington, ID (2012) Benedenia seriolae and Neobenedenia species. pp. 225244. In Woo, PTK and Buchmann, K (Eds) Fish parasites: pathobiology and protection. Wallingford, UK, CABI.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiegertjes, GF, Groeneveld, A and van Muiswiunkel, WB (1995) Genetic variation in susceptibility to Trypanoplasma borreli infection in common carp (Cyprinus carpio L). Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology 47(1–2), 153161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilde, J (1937) Dactylogyrus macracanthus Wegener als Krankheitserreger auf den Kiemen der Scleie (Tinca tinca) [Dactylogyrus macracanthus Wegener as a pathogen on the gills of bran (Tinca tinca)]. Zeitschrift für Parasitenkunde 9(2), 201236. [In German.]Google Scholar
Williams, HH, MacKenzie, K and McCarthy, AM (1992) Parasites as biological indicators of the population biology, migrations, diet, and phylogenetics of fish. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 2(2), 144176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, K and Markiw, ME (1984) Biology contravenes taxonomy in the Myxozoa: new discoveries show alternation of the invertebrate and vertebrate hosts. Science 225(4669), 14491459.Google Scholar
Woo, PTK and Li, S (1990) In vitro attenuation of Cryptobia salmositica and its use as a live vaccine against cryptobiosis in Oncorhynchus mykiss. Journal of Parasitology 76(5), 752755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, CL, Lafferty, KD and Micheli, F (2010) Fishing out marine parasites? Impacts of fishing on rates of parasitism in the ocean. Ecology Letters 13(6), 761775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, CL, Micheli, F, Fernandez, M, Gelcich, S, Castilla, JC and Carvajal, J (2013) Marine protected areas facilitate parasite populations among four fished host species of central Chile. Journal of Animal Ecology 82(6), 12761287.Google Scholar
Wood, CL, Sandin, SA, Zgliczynski, B, Guerra, AS and Micheli, F (2014) Fishing drives declines in fish parasite diversity and has variable effects on parasite abundance. Ecology 95(7), 19291946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wootton, EC, Woolmer, AP, Vogan, CL, Pope, EC, Hamilton, KM and Rowley, AF (2012) Increased disease calls for a cost–benefits review of marine reserves. PLoS One 7(12), e51615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wunder, W (1929) Die Dactylogyrus krankheit der karpfenbrut, ihre ursache und ihre bekämpfung [The Dactylogyrus disease of carp fry, its cause and control]. Zeitschrift für Fischerei 27(1), 511545. [In German.]Google Scholar
Xu, Z, Parra, D, Gomez, D, et al. (2013) Teleost skin, an ancient mucosal surface that elicits gut-like immune responses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110(32), 1309713102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yamaguti, S (1968) Monogenetic trematodes of Hawaian fishes. Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology Contribution 262. pp. 1287. Honolulu, Hawai, University of Hawaii Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zarlenga, DS, Hoberg, E, Rosenthal, B, Mattiucci, S and Nascetti, G (2014) Anthropogenics: human influence on global and genetic homogenization of parasite populations. Journal of Parasitology 100(6), 756772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, S, Zhu, J, Xu, S and Chen, Z (2021) An integrated approach to determine the stock structure of spinyhead sroaker Collichthys lucidus (Sciaenidae) in Chinese coastal waters. Frontiers in Marine Science 8(1), 693954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. Studies using genetic markers (mitochondrial genes) to assess population structure of marine parasites of relevance in fisheries.

Figure 1

Table 2. Studies on fish parasites as indicators of success of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs).