Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nmvwc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-20T11:18:35.595Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of fish skin mucus on hatching in the monogenean parasite Entobdella soleae from the skin of the common sole, Solea solea

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

Graham C. Kearn
Graham C. Kearn
Affiliation:
School of Biological Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NOR 88C, U.K.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Previously it has been shown that eggs of the skin-parasitic monogenean Entobdella soleae, maintained free of host contamination at constant temperature (12 °C) and exposed to alternating 12 h periods of light and darkness, hatch during the first few hours of each period of illumination as a result of endogenous processes in the larva in conjunction with the illumination cycle. Washings, prepared by immersing the parasite's host (the common sole, Solea solea) for 1 h in seawater (just sufficient to cover the body), enhance this ‘morning’ hatching. Furthermore, the application of host washings during the latter half of the period of illumination or during the dark period also stimulates hatching. Experiments have shown that the hatching factor is present in sole skin mucus, is not destroyed by boiling for 5 min or by freezing and is produced by small soles measuring 4–5 cm in length as well as by larger soles (15–21 cm long).

When eggs are incubated at about 12°C in the absence of fish washings, hatching begins about 30 days after laying, but there is evidence that some of the larvae inside their shells are fully developed and capable of hatching in response to host hatching factor 1–3 days earlier.

When fish washings are added to eggs which range in age from 25 to more than 30 days (at 12 °C) many eggs are stimulated to hatch (in addition to ‘morning’ hatching as a result of endogenous rhythmical processes and the illumination cycle) and others fail to hatch. These remaining unhatched eggs, in the absence of further treatment with host hatching factor, will complete their development and subsequently will hatch during the ‘morning’ hours in response to the illumination cycle. Further contact with host hatching factor is likely to stimulate the hatching of some of these remaining eggs.

The host hatching factor is not specific to S. solea; washings from plaice, dab, halibut, whiting and ray induce hatching in E. soleae. In experiments in which oncomiracidia were offered scales from dab and sole, most of the attached larvae were found on sole skin, irrespective of whether the hatching stimulant had been provided by dab or by sole.

The relationship between the behaviour of the common sole and hatching phenomena in the skin parasite is discussed; hatching rhythms and the use of host hatching factors adapt the parasite to take advantage of most opportunities to infect the host.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 68 , Issue 2 , April 1974 , pp. 173 - 188
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1974

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

Bardach, J. E. & Todd, J. H. (1970). Chemical communication in fish. In Advances in, Chemoreception, vol 1 (ed. Johnston, J. W., Moulton, D. G. and Turk, A.). New York: Meredith Corporation.Google Scholar
Bovet, J. (1967). Contribution à la morphologie et à la biologie de Diplozoon paradoxum v. Nordmann, 1832. Bulletin de la Société Neuchâteloise des Sciences naturelles 90, 64–159.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 W. J. Hargis and P C. Oustinoff (1961). Washington: American Institute of Biological Sciences.Google Scholar
De Groot, S. J. (1969). A review paper on the behaviour of flatfishes. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Fisheries Report no. 62, vol. 2, 139–67.Google Scholar
De Groot, S. J. (1971). On the interrelationships between morphology of the alimentary tract, food and feeding behaviour in flatfishes (Pisces: Pleuronectiformes). Netherlands Journal of Sea Research 5, 121–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Døving, K. B., Enger, P. S. & Nordeng, H. (1973). Electrophysiological studies on the olfactory sense in char (Salmo alpinus L.). Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 45, Comparative Physiology no. 1 A, 21–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Euzet, L. & Raibaut, A. (1960). Le développement postlarvaire de Squalonchocotyle torpedinis (Price, 1942) (Monogenea, Hexabothriidae). Bulletin de la Société Neuchâteloise des Sciences naturelles 83, 101–8.Google Scholar
Hara, T. J. (1971). Chemoreception. In Fish Physiology, vol. v (ed. Hoar, W. S. and Randall, D. J.). New York, London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kearn, G. C. (1963). The life cycle of the monogenean Entobdella soleae, a skin parasite of the common sole. Parasitology 53, 253–63.Google 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. (1973). An endogenous circadian hatching rhythm in the monogenean skin parasite Entobdella soleae, and its relationship to the activity rhythm of the host (Solea solea). Parasitology 66, 101–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kearn, G. C. (1974). Nocturnal hatching in the monogenean skin parasite Entobdella hippoglossi from the halibut, Hippoglossus hippoglossus. Parasitology 68, 161–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
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
Steven, G. A. (1932). Rays and skates of Devon and Cornwall. II. A study of the fishery; with notes on the occurrence, migrations and habits of the species. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 18, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, A. (1969). The Fishes of the British Isles and North-West Europe, 613 pp. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar