Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T05:34:34.789Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An endogenous circadian hatching rhythm in the monogenean skin parasite Entobdella soleae, and its relationship to the activity rhythm of the host (Solea solea)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

G. C. Kearn
G. C. Kearn
Affiliation:
School of Biological Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, U.K.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

When the eggs of the skin parasitic monogenean Entobdella soleae are subjected in the laboratory to alternating periods of light and darkness (LD 12:12, LD 6:18 or LD 18:6) at constant temperature (selected from the range 12–16 °C), hatching is rhythmical, most of the oncomiracidia emerging during the first 4 h of the period of illumination on each successive day.

Rhythmicity in response to alternating 12 h periods of light and darkness persists in a wide range of lighting conditions including natural daylight and in dim blue light, the latter being similar in intensity (65 nW/cm2) and in spectral quality to light at the depths where the host Solea solea lives.

The hatching rhythm persists with a periodicity of about 24 h in constant darkness and in constant light, provided that the eggs have been exposed previously to LD 12:12 until hatching begins. This indicates that there is a strong endogenous component to the rhythm.

Eggs laid and maintained in total darkness develop and hatch, but the oncomiracidia may emerge at any time during each 24 h period and there is little evidence of rhythmicity.

When alternate 12 h periods of light and darkness are reversed after the commencement of hatching, the hatching pattern also reverses after 24 h, so that emergence of larvae occurs at the beginning of the new illumination period.

Mechanical disturbance plays little or no part as a hatching stimulus.

Larvae, which had emerged from their eggs at some time between 20 and 80 min previously, responded to host skin, suggesting that an initial uninfective period is of short duration or absent.

Hatching soon after dawn may have high survival value for E. soleae in view of the host's activity pattern; soles are active at night and partly bury themselves in the sediment (where the eggs of the parasite lie) at dawn, and the fish is inactive and a stationary target during the day.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 66 , Issue 1 , February 1973 , pp. 101 - 122
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1973

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ackefors, H., Ahnström, G., Eriksson, Å., Lindh, R., & Rosén, C., (1969). Electrical and mechanical construction of an underwater light meter. Meddelande från Havsfiskelaboratoriet, Lysekil, no. 74, 1–10.Google Scholar
Armstrong, F. A. J., & Butler, E. I., (1962). Hydrographic surveys off Plymouth in 1959 and 1960. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 42, 445–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boden, B. P., Kampa, E. M., & Snodgrass, J. M., (1960). Underwater daylight measurements in the Bay of Biscay. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 39, 227–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bovet, J., (1967). Contribution à la morphologie et à la biologic de Diplozoon paradoxum v. Nordmann, 1832. Bulletin de la Société Neucháteloise des Sciences naturelles 90, 64–159.Google Scholar
Bruce, V. G., (1960). Environmental entrainment of circadian rhythms. In Biological Clocks. Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology 25, 29–48.Google Scholar
Bychowsky, B. E., (1957). Monogenetic Trematodes, their Classification and Phylogeny. Moscow: Leningrad. Academy of Sciences, U.S.S.R. (in Russian); English translation by Hargis, W. J. and Oustinoff, P. C. (1961). Washington: American Institute of Biological Sciences.Google Scholar
Clarke, G. L., (1954). Elements of Ecology. 534 pp. London, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, B. H., & Nimeroff, I., (1968). Radiation sources and their power supplies. In Techniques of Photostimulation in Biology, ed. Crawford, B. H., Granger, G. W. and Weale, R. A., Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Euzet, L., & Raibaut, A., (1960). Le développement postlarvaire de Squalonchocotyle torpedinis (Price, 1942) (Monogenea, Hexabothrüdae). Bulletin de la Société Neucháteloise des Sciences naturelles 83, 101–8.Google Scholar
Harker, J. E., (1964). The Physiology of Diurnal Rhythms. 114 pp. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarPubMed
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. (1965). Report of the Working Group on Sole. Cooperative Research Report no. 5, pp. 1–126. Denmark: Charlottenlund Slot.Google Scholar
Jerlov, N. G., (1947). Optical studies of ocean water. In Reports of the Swedish Deep-Sea Expedition. Vol. 3. Physics and Chemistry, no. 1, 3–59.Google Scholar
Kearn, G. C., (1963 a). The life cycle of the monogenean Entobdella soleae, a skin parasite of the common sole. Parasitology 53, 253–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kearn, G. C., (1963 b). The egg, oncomiraeidium and larval development of Entobdella soleae, a monogenean skin parasite of the common sole. Parasitology 53, 435–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kearn, G. C., (1967). Experiments on host-finding and host-specificity in the monogenean skin parasite Entobdella soleae. Parasitology 57, 585–605.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kearn, G. C., (1971). The physiology and behaviour of the monogenean skin parasite Entobdella soleae in relation to its host (Solea solea). In Ecology and Physiology of Parasites: A Symposium, ed. Fallis, A. M., University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Kruuk, H., (1963). Diurnal periodicity in the activity of the common sole, Solea vulgaris Quensel. Netherlands Journal of Sea Research 2, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ktari, M. H., (1969). Recherches sur l'anatomie et la biologie de Microcotyle salpae Parona et Perugia, 1890, parasite de Box salpa L. (Téléostéen). Annales de Parasitologie humaine et comparée 44, 425–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Llewellyn, J., (1972). Behaviour of monogeneans. In Behavioural Aspects of Parasite Transmission. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. (In the Press.)Google Scholar
Lyons, K. M., (1972). Sense organs of monogeneans. In Behavioural Aspects of Parasite Transmission. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. (In the Press.)Google Scholar
Paling, J. E., (1969). The manner of infection of trout gills by the monogenean parasite Discocotyle sagittata. Journal of Zoology, London 159, 293–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paperna, I., (1963). Some observations on the biology and ecology of Dactylogyrus vastator in Israel. Bamidgeh, Bulletin of Fish Culture in Israel 15, 8–28.Google Scholar
Williams, C. M., & Adkisson, P. L., (1964). Physiology of insect diapause. XIV. An endocrine mechanism for the photoperiodie control of pupal diapause in the oak silkworm, Antheraea pernyi. Biological Bulletin of the Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole 127, 511–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar