Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T00:48:11.368Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of freshwater and marine/estuarine strains of Pomphorhynchus laevis occurring sympatrically in flounder, Platichthys flesus, in the tidal Thames

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2024

S. Guillen-Hernandez  and
P.J. Whitfield
S. Guillen-Hernandez*
Affiliation:
Environmental Sciences Research Group, Division of Life Sciences, King's College London, Franklin-Wilkins Building, 150 Stamford Street, London, SE1 8WA, UK
P.J. Whitfield*
Affiliation:
Environmental Sciences Research Group, Division of Life Sciences, King's College London, Franklin-Wilkins Building, 150 Stamford Street, London, SE1 8WA, UK
*
†Present address: Departmento de Ecologia, Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia, Universidad Autonoma de Yucatan. C.P. 97000, A.P. 4–116, Itzimna, Yucatan, Mexico
*Author for correspondence Fax: 020 7848 4195 E-mail: phil.whitfield@kcl.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Collections of flounder, Platichthys flesus, at two sites on the tidal River Thames in 1994 and 1995 have, for the first time, revealed the sympatric occurrence of the freshwater and marine/estuarine strains of the acanthocephalan parasite Pomphorhynchus laevis. This natural co-occurrence of the strains has been employed to compare infection levels and a range of parasite attributes of the two strains under conditions of sympatry. At both Lots Road (Chelsea) and Tilbury the marine/estuarine strain was present at far higher infection levels than the freshwater form. In a detailed comparison of worms from Tilbury flounder, a range of differences was revealed between the two strains. In single strain infections in individual fish, freshwater and marine/estuarine worms had distinct but overlapping gut microhabitat use patterns, with the former having a central intestinal bias and the latter a bias for the posterior region of the gut. In mixed strain infections, niche contraction occurred so that no overlap occurred. Freshwater worms were larger and had more eggs, more ovarian balls, and a higher percentage of fully developed eggs than the marine/estuarine worms. These differences are thought to reflect intrinsic, presumably genetically determined, differences between the two strains as they occurred in the same fish host species collected at the same place and time. Apparent differences in strain reproductive potential in flounder in the tidal Thames are discussed in the context of previous studies and the intermediate host segment of the parasite life cycle.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Helminthology , Volume 75 , Issue 3 , September 2001 , pp. 237 - 243
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2001

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

Brown, A.F. (1987) Anatomical variability and secondary sexual characteristics in Pomphorhynchus laevis (Muller, 1776) (Acanthocephalan). Systematic Parasitology 9, 213–219.10.1007/BF00010856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, A.F., Chubb, J.C. & Veltkamp, C.J. (1986) A key of Acanthocephala parasitic in British freshwater fishes. Journal of Fish Biology 28, 327–334.10.1111/j.1095-8649.1986.tb05169.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crompton, D.T.W. (1973) The site occupied by some parasitic helminths in the alimentary canal of vertebrates. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 48, 27–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, J.E. (1972) The immune reaction of cyprinid fish to infections of the acanthocephalan Pomporhynchus laevis . International Journal for Parasitology 2, 459–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hine, P.M. & Kennedy, C.R. (1974) The population biology of the acanthocephalan Pomphorhynchus laevis (Muller, 1776) in the River Avon. Journal of Fish Biology 6, 665–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, C.R. (1984) The status of flounder Platichthys flesus, L. as host of the acanthocephalan Pomphorhynchus laevis (Muller) and its survival in marine conditions. Journal of Fish Biology 24, 135–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, C.R. (1986) Acanthocephalans 279–295 in, Adiyodi, A.K.G. & Adiyodi, R.G. (Eds) Reproductive biology of invertebrates. Vol. VI. New Delhi, Oxford and IBH Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Kennedy, C.R. (1996) Colonization and establishment of Pomphorhynchus laevis (Acanthocephala) in an isolated English river. Journal of Helminthology 70, 27–31.10.1017/S0022149X00015091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, C.R., Broughton, P.F. & Hine, P.M. (1976) The site occupied by the acanthocephalan Pomphorhynchus laevis in the alimentary tract of fish. Parasitology 72, 195–206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kennedy, C.R., Broughton, P.F. & Hine, P.M. (1978) The status of brown and rainbow trout, Salmo trutta and S. gairdneri as hosts of the acanthocephalan Pomphorhynchus laevis . Journal of Fish Biology 13, 265–275.10.1111/j.1095-8649.1978.tb03434.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, C.R., Bates, R.M. & Brown, A.F. (1989) Discontinuous distribution of the fish acanthocephalans Pomphorhynchus laevis and Acanthocephalus anguillae in Britain and Ireland: a hypothesis. Journal of Fish Biology 34, 607–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keymer, A., Crompton, D.W.T. & Walters, D.E. (1983) Parasite population biology and host nutrition: dietary fructose and Moniliformis (Acanthocephala). Parasitology 87, 265–278.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, S. (1993) Studies on aspects of the parasite fauna of smelt (Osmerus eperlanus, L.) in the River Thames. PhD thesis, University of London.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, K. & Gibson, D.I. (1970) Ecological studies of some parasites of the plaice Pleuronectes platessa L. and flounder Platichthys flesus . Symposia of the British Society for Parasitology 8, 1–40.Google Scholar
Molloy, S., Holland, C. & Regan, M.O. (1995) Population biology of Pomphorhynchus laevis in brown trout from two lakes in the west of Ireland. Journal of Helminthology 69, 220–235.Google ScholarPubMed
Munro, M.A. (1992) Studies on the estuarine strain of Pomphorhynchus laevis (Acanthocephala) in the Thames Estuary. PhD Thesis, University of London.Google Scholar
Munro, M.A., Whitfield, P.J. & Diffley, R. (1989) Pomporhynchus laevis (Muller) in flounder, Platichthys flesus L., in the tidal River Thames: population structure, microhabitat utilisation and reproductive status in the field and under conditions of controlled salinity. Journal of Fish Biology 35, 719–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munro, M.A., Reid, A. & Whitfield, P.J. (1990) Genomic divergence in the ecology differentiated English freshwater and marine strains of Pomphorhynchus laevis (Acanthocephala: Palaeacanthocephala): a preliminary investigation. Parasitology 101, 451–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munro, M.A., Whitfield, P.J. & Lee, S. (1999) Host-parasite interactions: case studies of parasitic infections in migratory fish 141–165 in Attrill, M.J. (Eds) A rehabilitated estuarine ecosystem, the environment and ecology of the Thames Estuary. London, Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romesburg, H.C. & Marshall, K. (1985) Chi test: a Monte-Carlo computer program for contingency table test. Computers and Geosciences 11(1), 69–78.10.1016/0098-3004(85)90039-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar