Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:55:51.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Colonization and establishment of Pomphorhynchus laevis (Acanthocephala) in an isolated English river

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2009

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

Abstract

The successful colonization, establishment and spread of Pomphorhynchus laevis in a small, isolated, Devon river 128 km from the parasite's nearest focus in Dorset was followed over 11 years from 1985. The parasite was first detected in Anguilla anguilla and Platichthys flesus in 1988: by 1995 it had attained prevalence levels of 22.6% in A. anguilla and 43.6% in P. flesus and also occurred in 100% Salmo trutta, 50% Cottus gobio and Noemacheilus barbatulus. As judged by prevalence, abundance, proportion of females gravid and weight of gravid females, S. trutta was the preferred definitive host although C. gobio was a suitable host and may play a role in cycling the parasite: the other three species were unsuitable hosts. The intermediate host was the freshwater Gammarus pulex: the euryhaline G. zaddachi was not infected. On biological grounds, the P. laevis could be assigned to the English freshwater strain and was almost certainly introduced to the river by anthropochore stocking of S. trutta from a Dorset hatchery. The findings demonstrate conclusively that the English strain of P. laevis can colonize and establish in a new locality from which Leuciscus cephalus and Barbus barbus, its normal preferred hosts, are absent and use S. trutta instead. The results also confirm that P. laevis is a poor natural colonizer and appears always to be introduced to new localities by anthropochore transfers of fish. The implications of these conclusions for understanding the present distribution of P. laevis are discussed and it is considered that they provide direct evidence in support of the hypothesis that P. laevis was introduced to Ireland from England and subsequently adapted to use of S. trutta and G. duebeni there.

Type
Research Papers
Information
Journal of Helminthology , Volume 70 , Issue 1 , March 1996 , pp. 27 - 31
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

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

Bates, R.M. & Kennedy, C.R. (1990) Interactions between the acanthocephalans Pomphorhynchus laevis and Acanthocephalus anguillae in rainbow trout: testing an exclusion hypothesis. Parasitology 100, 435–114.Google Scholar
Brown, A.F. (1987) Anatomical variability and secondary sexual characteristics in Pomphorhynchus laevis (Muller, 1776) (Acanthocephala). Systematic Parasitology 9,213–219.Google Scholar
Brown, A.F. (1989) Seasonal dynamics of the acanthocephalan Pomphorhynchus laevis (Muller, 1776) in its intermediate and preferred definitive hosts. Journal of Fish Biology 34, 183–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conneely, J.J. & McCarthy, T.K. (1988) The metazoan parasites of trout (Salmo trutta L.) in western Ireland. Polskie Archiwum Hydrobiologii 35, 443–460.Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, R.D. & Mulcahy, M.F. (1983) Parasites of salmon (Salmo salar L.) and trout (S.trutta L.) in the River Shoumagh, Co.Cork. Irish Fisheries Investigations A23,24–31.Google Scholar
Gibson, D.I. (1972) Flounder parasites as biological tags. Journal of Fish Biology 4,1–9.Google Scholar
Hine, P.M. & Kennedy, C.R. (1974) Observations on the distribution, specificity and pathogenicity of the acanthocephalan Pomphorhynchus laevis (Muller). Journal of Fish Biology 6, 521–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kane, M.B. (1966) Parasites of Irish fishes. Scientific Proceedings of the Royal Dublin Society B1 (No. 18), 205–220.Google Scholar
Kennedy, C.R. (1984) The status of flounders, Platichthys flesus L., as hosts of the acanthocephalan Pomphorhynchus laevis (Muller) and its survival in marine conditions. Journal of Fish Biology 24,135–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, C.R. (1993 a) The dynamics of intestinal helminth communities in eels Anguilla anguilla in a small stream: long term changes in richness and structure. Parasitology 107, 71–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, C.R. (1993 b) Introductions, spread and colonization of new localities by fish helminth and crustacean parasites in the British Isles: a perspective and appraisal. Journal of Fish Biology 43, 287–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, C.R., Bates, R.M. & Brown, A.F. (1989) Discontinuous distributions of the fish acanthocephalans Pomphorhynchus laevis and Acanthocephalus anguillae in Britain and Ireland: an hypothesis. Journal of Fish Biology 34, 607–619.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molloy, S., Holland, C. & Poole, R. (1993) Helminth parasites of brown and sea trout Salmo trutta L. from the west coast of Ireland. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 93B, 137–142.Google Scholar
Molloy, S., Holland, C. & O'Regan, M. (1995) Population biology of Pomphorhynchus laevis in brown trout from two lakes in the west of Ireland. Journal of Helminthology 69, 229–235.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Munro, M.A., Whitfield, P.J. & Diffley, R. (1989) Pomphorhynchus laevis (Muller) in the flounder, Platichthys flesus, L., in the tidal River Thames: population structure, microhabitat utilization 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 ecologically differentiated English freshwater and marine strains of Pomphorhyncus laevis (Acanthocephala: Palaeacanthocephala): a preliminary investigation. Parasitology 101, 451–154.Google Scholar
Pippy, J.H.C. (1969) Pomphorhynchus laevis (Zoega) Muller, 1776 (Acanthocephala) in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and its use as a biological tag. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 26, 909–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poynton, S.L. & Bennett, C.E. (1985) Parasitic infections and their interactions in wild and cultured brown trout and cultured rainbow trout from the River Itchen, Hampshire, pp. 353–357 in Fish and shellfish pathology. London, Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rumpus, A.E. (1975) The helminth parasites of the bullhead Cottus gobio (L.) and the stone loach Noemacheilus barbatulus (L.) from the River Avon, Hampshire. Journal of Fish Biology 7, 469–483.Google Scholar
Wanstall, S.T., Thomas, J.S. & Robotham, R.W.J. (1988) The pathology caused by Pomphorhynchus laevis Muller in the alimentary tract of the stone loach Noemacheilus barbatulus (L.). Journal of Fish Diseases 11, 511–523.Google Scholar