Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T00:29:06.991Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Site segregation by species of Acanthocephala in fish, with special reference to eels, Anguilla anguilla

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

C. R. Kennedy
C. R. Kennedy
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, The University of Exeter, Exeter EX4 4PS
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Site specificity and distribution of 5 species offreshwater acanthocephalans Acanthocephalus clavula, A. lucii, A. anguillae, Pomphorhynchus laevis and Echinorhynchus trultae and I marine species, E. gadi, were studied in the intestines of several species of fish, especially Anguilla anguilla. When data are presented in the conventional manner with results from all fish and all parasites in a sample combined, each species exhibited a preference for a particular region of the intestine which altered in some species in relation to host identity and sex and abundance of parasite. Each species could nevertheless inhabit most of the length of the intestine and there was a considerable degree of overlap in most cases between the distributions of species in the same host, but the mean position of each species differed significantly from that of any other and the species appeared to exhibit site segregation and resource partitioning along the length of the intestine. In individual fish, fidelity of site location and distribution is poor and may bear little or no relationship to the position and distribution of the parasites in the population as a whole, and it is concluded that the concepts of site specificity and segregation are most applicable at the population level. Mixed species infections are very rarely encountered in Britain since most freshwater localities contain, or are almost completely dominated by, only a single species of acanthocephalan. The results are discussed in relation to current ideas on the role of interspecific competition in determining site segregation and community structure of parasites. It appears that site specificity in fish acanthocephala is not related to the probability of mating, or site segregation to interspecific competition past or present. Acanthocephalan communities do not exist as such; the normal situation is chance assemblages, with vacant niches, little organization, few or no interactions and little fidelity between habitats.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 90 , Issue 2 , April 1985 , pp. 375 - 390
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

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

REFERENCES

Awachie, J. B. E. (1965). The ecology of Echinorhynchus truttae Schrank, 1788 (Acanthocephala) in a trout stream in North Wales. Parasitology 55, 747–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Awachie, J. B. E. (1966). The development and life history of Echinorhynchus truttae Schrank, 1788 (Acanthocephala). Journal of Helminthology 40, 11–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bush, A. O. (1980). Faunal similarity and infra-community structure in the helminths of Lesser Scaup. Ph.D. thesis, University of Alberta.Google Scholar
Chappell, L. H. (1969). Competitive exclusion between two intestinal parasites of the three-spined stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus L. Journal of Parasitology 55, 775–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crompton, D. W. T. (1973). The sites occupied by some parasitic helminths in the alimentary tract of vertebrates. Biological Reviews 48, 27–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crompton, D. W. T. (1976). Entry into the host and site selection. In Ecological Aspects of Parasitology (ed. Kennedy, C. R.), pp. 41–73. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Grey, A. J. & Hayunga, E. G. (1980). Evidence for alternative site selection by Glaridacris laruei (Cestoidea: Caryophyllidea) as a result of interspecific competition. Journal of Parasitology 66, 371–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hair, J. D. & Holmes, J. C. (1975). The usefulness of measures of diversity, niche width and niche overlap in the analysis of helminth communities in waterfowl. Acta Parasitologica Polonica 23, 253–419.Google Scholar
Halvorsen, O. & Macdonald, S. (1972). Studies on the helrninth fauna of Norway XXVI: The distribution of Cyathocephalus truncatus (Pallas) in the intestine of brown trout (Salmo trutta L.). Norwegian Journal of Zoology 20, 265–72.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. C. (1973). Site selection by parasitic helminths: interspecific interactions, site segregation, and their importance to the development of helminth communities. Canadian Journal of Zoology 51, 333–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, C. R. (1974). A checklist of British and Irish freshwater fish parasites with notes on their distribution. Journal of Fish Biology 6, 613–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, C. R. (1981). Parasitocoenoses dynamics in freshwater ecosystems in Britain. Trudy Zoologicheskogo Instituta Akademia Nauk USSR 108, 9–22.Google Scholar
Kennedy, C. R. (1984). The status of flounders, Platichthys fiesus L., as hosts of the acanthocephalan Pomphorhynchus laevis (Muller) and its survival in marine conditions. Journal of Fish Biology 24, 135–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, C. R., Brouoiiton, P. F. & Hine, P. M. (1976). The sites occupied by the acanthocephalan Pomphorhynchus laevis in the alimentary canal of fish. Parasitology 72, 195–206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kennedy, C. R. & Lord, P. (1982). Habitat specificity of the acanthocephalan Acanthocephalus clavula (Dujardin, 1845) in eels Anyuilla anguilla (L.). Journal of Helmintlwlogy 56, 121–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, R. L. G. (1981). Ecology of Acantlwcephalus lucii (Muller, 1776) in perch Perca fluviatilis L., in the Serpentine, London, U.K. Journal of Helminthology 55, 149–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, P. W. (1980). Evolutionary Biology of Parasites. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Rohde, K. (1979). A critical evaluation of intrinsic and extrinsic factors responsible for niche restriction in parasites. American Naturalist 114, 648–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohde, K. (1981). Niche width of parasites in species-rich and species-poor communities. Experientia 37, 359–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uglem, G. L. & Beck, S. M. (1972). Habitat specificity and correlated aminopeptidase activity in the acanthocephalans Neoechinorhynchus cristatus and N. crassus. Journal of Parasitology 58, 911–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, H. H. & Halvorsen, O. (1971). The incidence and degree of infection of Gadus morhua L., 1758 with Abothrium gadi Beneden, 1871 (Cestoda: Pseudophyllidea). Norwegian Journal of Zoology 19, 193–9.Google Scholar
Williams, W. D. (1963). The ecological relationships of isopod crustaceans Asellus aquaticus (L.) and A. meridian Rae. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 140, 661–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, W. D. (1979). The distribution of Asellusaqucaicus and A. meridianus (Crustacea, Isopoda) in Britain. Freshwater Biology 9, 491–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar