Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T19:23:39.768Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - Community stability and instability in ectoparasites of marine and freshwater fish

from Part II - Nonequilibrium and Equilibrium in Communities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 March 2013

By
Andrea Šimková  and
Klaus Rohde
Edited by
Klaus Rohde
Klaus Rohde
Affiliation:
University of New England, Australia
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Marine and freshwater fish are hosts to a rich fauna of ectoparasites, living on their gills and skin feeding on blood, mucus and epithelial cells. Fish can easily be obtained and examined in large numbers. Fish ectoparasites represent a highly diverse group including monogeneans, crustaceans, isopods, mollusks and hirudineans. This makes them almost ideal objects for ecological studies. Such studies have been conducted by several researchers, using a range of host species and ecological techniques, with the aim of identifying patterns and processes in parasite communities. Studies have concentrated on different levels of community organization, i.e., those of infra-, component and compound communities, and examined questions of saturation vs. non-saturation of communities, degree of aggregation, temporal and spatial variability of organization, limiting similarity and niche segregation, host specificity, nestedness, and degree of structuring in communities as revealed by null model analyses. All these aspects are of significance in an evaluation of how common equilibrium and nonequilibrium conditions are in ecological communities, the main topic of this book. In this chapter, we provide an up-to-date account of relevant studies.

Parasite communities

Parasite communities have been commonly studied at different levels, i.e., those of infracommunity, component community and compound community (Holmes & Price, 1986). A parasite infracommunity consists of all the infrapopulations (populations of all species) within a host individual. Infracommunities are incapable of self-perpetuation (because most parasites disperse their propagules into the free environment where they usually develop before reaching a host). A parasite component community consists of all infracommunities within a host population. The boundaries for the component community depend on spatial scale (Aho & Bush, 1993). For example, one can consider a component community as (1) all parasites in all individuals of a given host species from a specific collection site of a water body, or (2) all parasites of all individuals throughout the host’s geographical distribution or of a range of host distributions for which the data were obtained.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Balance of Nature and Human Impact , pp. 75 - 88
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2013

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

Aho, J. M., & Bush, A. O. (1993). Community richness in parasites of freshwater fishes from North America. In Ricklefs, R. E. & Schluter, D. (Eds.), Species Diversity in Ecological Communities: Historical and Geographical Perspectives (pp. 185–193). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Butlin, R. (1989). Reinforcement of premating isolation. In Otte, D. & Endler, J. A. (Eds.), Speciation and Its Consequences (pp. 158–179). Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates Inc.Google Scholar
Cornell, H. V., & Lawton, J. H. (1992). Species interactions, local and regional processes, and limits to the richness of ecological communities: a theoretical perspective. Journal of Animal Ecology, 61, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culter, A. H. (1998). Nested patterns of species distribution: processes and implications. In McKinney, M. L. & Drake, A. J. (Eds.), Biodiversity Dynamics. Turnover of Populations, Taxa, and Communities (pp. 212–231). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Gotelli, N. J., & Rohde, K. (2002). Co-occurrence of ectoparasites of marine fishes: null model analysis. Ecology Letters, 5, 86–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guégan, J.-F., & Huguény, B. (1994). A nested parasite species subset pattern in tropical fish: host as major determinant of parasite infracommunity structure. Oecologia, 100, 184–189.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holmes, J. C., & Price, P. W. (1986). Communities of parasites. In: Kikkawa, J. & Anderson, D. J. (Eds.), Community Ecology: Pattern and Process (pp. 186–213). Oxford: Blackwell Scientific.Google Scholar
Huguény, B., & Guégan, J.-F. (1997). Community nestedness and the proper way to assess statistical significance by Monte-Carlo tests: some comments on Worthen and Rohde’s (1996) paper. Oikos, 80, 572–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchinson, G. E. (1959). Homage to Santa Rosalia, or why are there so many kinds of animals? The American Naturalist, 93, 145–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ives, A. R. (1988). Aggregation and the coexistence of competitors. Annales Zoologici Fennici, 25, 75–88.Google Scholar
Ives, A. R. (1991). Aggregation and coexistence in a carrion fly community. Ecological Monographs, 61, 75–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaenike, J., & James, A. C. (1991). Aggregation and the coexistence of mycophagous Drosophila. Journal of Animal Ecology, 60, 913–928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeffries, M. J., & Lawton, J. H. (1984). Enemy free space and the structure of ecological communities. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 23, 269–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kadlec, D., Šimková, A., & Gelnar, M. (2003). The microhabitat distribution of two Dactylogyrus species parasitizing the gills of the barbel, Barbus barbus. Journal of Helminthology, 77, 317–325.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koskivaara, M., & Valtonen, E. T. (1992). Dactylogyrus (Monogenea) communities on the gills of roach in three lakes in Central Finland. Parasitology, 104, 263–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koskivaara, M., Valtonen, E. T., & Vuori, K.-M. (1992). Microhabitat distribution and coexistence of Dactylogyrus species (Monogenea) on the gills of the roach. Parasitology, 104, 273–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matějusová, I., Morand, S., & Gelnar, M. (2000). Nestedness in assemblages of gyrodactylids (Monogenea: Gyrodactylidea) parasitising two species of cyprinid – with reference to generalists and specialists. International Journal for Parasitology, 30, 1153–1158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matějusová, I., Šimková, A., Sasal, P., & Gelnar, M. (2003). Microhabitat distribution of Pseudodactylogyrus anguillae and Pseudodactylogyrus bini among and within gill arches of the European eel (Anguilla anguilla L.). Parasitology Research, 89, 290–296.Google Scholar
Morand, S., Poulin, R., Rohde, K., & Hayward, C. J. (1999). Aggregation and species coexistence of ectoparasites of marine fishes. International Journal for Parasitology, 29, 663–672.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morand, S., Rohde, K., & Hayward, C. (2002a). Order in parasite communities of marine fish is explained by epidemiological processes. Parasitology, 124, S57–S63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morand, S., Šimková, A., Matějusová, I., et al. (2002b). Investigating patterns may reveal processes: evolutionary ecology of ectoparasitic monogeneans. International Journal for Parasitology, 32, 111–119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patterson, B. D., & Atmar, W. (1986). Nested subsets and the structure of insular mammalian faunas and archipelagos. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 28, 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poulin, R. (1997). Parasite faunas of freshwater fish: the relationship between richness and the specificity of parasites. International Journal for Parasitology, 27, 1091–1098.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poulin, R. (2007). Evolutionary Ecology of Parasites. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Poulin, R., & Guégan, J. F. (2000). Nestedness, anti-nestedness, and the relationship between prevalence and intensity in ectoparasite assemblages of marine fish: a spatial model of species coexistence. International Journal for Parasitology, 30, 1147–1152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rohde, K. (1977). A non-competitive mechanism responsible for restricting niches in parasites. Zoologishe Anzeiger, 199, 164–172.Google Scholar
Rohde, K. (1979). A critical evaluation of intrinsic and extrinsic factors responsible for niche restriction in parasites. The American Naturalist, 114, 648–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohde, K. (1989). Simple ecological systems, simple solutions to complex problems? Evolutionary Theory, 8, 305–350.Google Scholar
Rohde, K. (1991). Intra-and inter-specific interactions in low density populations in resource-rich habitat. Oikos, 60, 91–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohde, K. (2005). Nonequilibrium Ecology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rohde, K., & Hobbs, R. P. (1986). Species segregation: competition or reinforcement of reproductive barriers? In Cremin, M., Dobson, C., & Noorhouse, E. (Eds.), Parasite Lives. Papers on Parasites, their Hosts and their Association to Honour J. F. A. Sprent (pp. 189–199). St Lucia: University of Queensland Press.Google Scholar
Rohde, K., Worthen, W. B., Heap, M., Huguény, B., & Guégan, J.-F. (1998). Nestedness in assemblages of metozoan ecto- and endoparasites of marine fish. International Journal of Parasitology, 28, 543–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, D. J., & Dobson, A. P. (1995). Patterns of macroparasite abundance and aggregation in wildlife populations: a quantitative review. Parasitology, 111, S111–S133.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shorrocks, B., & Rosewell, J. (1986). Guild size in drosophilids: a simulation model. Journal of Animal Ecology, 55, 527–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Šimková, A., Desdevises, Y., Gelnar, M., & Morand, S. (2000). Co-existence of nine gill ectoparasites (Dactylogyrus: Monogenea) parasitizing roach (Rutilus rutilus L.): history and present ecology. International Journal for Parasitology, 30, 1177–1188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Šimková, A., Gelnar, M., & Sasal, P. (2001a). Aggregation of congeneric parasites (Monogenea: Dactylogyrus) among gill microhabitats within one host species (Rutilus rutilus L.). Parasitology, 123, 599–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Šimková, A., Sasal, P., Kadlec, D., & Gelnar, M. (2001b). Water temperature influencing dactylogyrid species communities in roach, Rutilus rutilus, in the Czech Republic. Journal of Helminthology, 75, 373–393.Google ScholarPubMed
Šimková, A., Desdevises, Y., Gelnar, M., & Morand, S. (2001c). Morphometric correlates of host specificity in Dactylogyrus species (Monogenea) parasites of European Cyprinid fish. Parasitology, 123, 169–177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Šimková, A., Gelnar, M., & Morand, S. (2001d). Order and disorder in ectoparasite communities: the case of congeneric gill monogeneans (Dactylogyrus spp.). International Journal for Parasitology, 31, 1205–1210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Šimková, A., Ondračková, M., Gelnar, M., & Morand, S. (2002). Morphology and coexistence of congeneric ectoparasite species: reinforcement of reproductive isolation? Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 76, 125–135.Google Scholar
Šimková, A., Goüy de Bellocq, J., & Morand, S. (2003). The structure of host-parasite communities: order and history. In Combes, C. & Jourdane, J. (Eds.), Taxonomy, Ecology and Evolution of Metazoan Parasites (pp. 237–257). Livre hommage à Louis Euzet. Perpignan: Presses Universitaires de Perpignan (Collection Etudes).Google Scholar
Šimková, A., Verneau, O., Gelnar, M., & Morand, S. (2006). Specificity and specialization of congeneric monogeneans parasitizing Cyprinid fish. Evolution, 60, 1023–1037.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Valtonen, E. T., Pulkinnen, K., Poulin, R., & Julkunen, M. (2001). The structure of parasite component communities in brackish water fishes of the northeastern Baltic Sea. Parasitology, 122, 471–481.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Worthen, W. R., & Rohde, K. (1996). Nested subset analyses of colonization-dominated communities: metazoan ectoparasites of marine fishes. Oikos, 75, 471–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zelmer, D. A., & Arai, H. P. (1998). The contributions of host age and size to the aggregated distribution of parasites in yellow perch, Perca flavescens, from Garner Lake, Alberta, Canada. Journal of Parasitology, 84, 24–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×