Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Article contents

Impact of the cestode Triaenophorus nodulosus on the exotic Lepomis gibbosus and the autochthonous Perca fluviatilis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2014


G. MASSON
Affiliation:
Université de Lorraine, Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire des Environnements Continentaux (LIEC), CNRS UMR 7360, Campus Bridoux, Rue du Général Delestraint, F-57070 Metz, France
M. VANACKER
Affiliation:
Department of Agroecology and Environment, ISARA Lyon (member of university of Lyon), 23 rue Jean Baldassini, 69364 Lyon, France
M. G. FOX
Affiliation:
Environmental and Resource Studies Program and Department of Biology, Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario K9J 7B8, Canada
J.-N. BEISEL
Affiliation:
Ecole Nationale du Génie de l'Eau et de l'Environnement de Strasbourg (ENGEES), 1 Quai Koch, BP 61039, 67070 Strasbourg, France Laboratoire Image, Ville, Environnement (LIVE), CNRS UMR 7362, Université de Strasbourg, 3 rue de l'Argonne, 67083 Strasbourg, France
Corresponding

Summary

The effects of plerocercoids of the cestode Triaenophorus nodulosus infecting the livers of native Eurasian perch Perca fluviatilis and non-native pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus was investigated in 17 sites along the Moselle watershed. With a single exception, infected individuals were not observed in the main channel whether or not northern pike Esox lucius, a final host, was present. In ponds where the pike was present, the prevalence of T. nodulosus averaged 86% in Eurasian perch and 15% in pumpkinseed. The parasite was not present at all in ponds when pike were absent. Parasite load, hepatosomatic index (HSI), gonadosomatic index (GSI) and body condition index (CI) were compared between hosts in one site where parasite prevalence and fish abundance was highest. HSI in infected perch was significantly higher than in uninfected perch, whereas no differences in HSI were detected between infected and uninfected pumpkinseed. While perch were more frequently infected and had a greater average parasite load than pumpkinseed, there were no significant differences in either indicator between the two species. Furthermore, no significant differences in GSI or CI were observed between infected and uninfected fish in either species, by either gender or maturity stage. We hypothesize that pumpkinseed is more resistant to the parasite or less likely to feed upon infected copepods than perch.


Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Arme, C. (1968). Effects of the plerocercoids larva of a pseudophyllidean cestode, Ligula intestinalis, on the pituitary gland and gonads of its host. Biological Bulletin 134, 1525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balling, E. B. and Pfeiffer, W. (1997). Frequency distributions of fish parasites in the perch Perca fluviatilis L. from Lake Constance. Parasitology Research 83, 370373.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brinker, A. and Hamers, R. (2000). First description of pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus (L.) as a possible second intermediate host for Triaenophorus nodulosus (Pallas, 1781) (Cestoda, Pseudophyllidea) in Germany. Bulletin of the European Association of Fish Pathologists 2, 83.Google Scholar
Brinker, A. and Hamers, R. (2007). Evidence for negative impact of plerocercoid infection of Triaenophorus nodulosus on Perca fluviatilis L. stock in Upper Lake Constance, a water body undergoing rapid reoligotrophication. Journal of Fish Biology 71, 129147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnham, K. P. and Anderson, D. R. (2002). Model Selection and Multimodel Inference. Springer, New York.Google Scholar
Burns, J. R. (1976). The reproductive cycle and its environmental control in the pumpkinseed, Lepomis gibbosus (Pisces: Centrarchidae). Copeia 1976, 449455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chubb, J. C. (1964). Observations on the occurrence of the plerocercoids of Triaenophorus nodulosus (Pallas, 1781) (Cestoda: Pseudophyllidea) in the perch Perca fluviatilis L. of Llyn Tegin (Bala Lake), Merionethshire. Parasitology 54, 481491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copp, G. H. and Fox, M. G. (2007). Growth and life history traits of introduced pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus) in Europe, and the relevance to invasiveness potential. In Freshwater Bioinvaders: Profiles, Distribution, and Threats (ed. Gherardi, F.), pp. 289306. Springer, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copp, G. H., Fox, M. G., Przybylski, M., Godinho, F. N. and Vila-Gispert, A. (2004). Life-time growth patterns of pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus introduced to Europe, relative to native North American populations. Folia Zoologica 53, 237254.Google Scholar
Craig, J. F. (1987). The Biology of Perch and Related Fish. Croom Helm, London, 333 pp.Google Scholar
Cucherousset, J. and Olden, J. D. (2011). Ecological impacts of nonnative freshwater fishes. Fisheries 36, 215230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delahunty, G. and de Vlaming, V. L. (1980). Seasonal relationship of ovary weight, liver weight and fat stores with body weight in the goldfish, Carassius auratus (L.). Journal of Fish Biology 16, 513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Djikanović, V., Paunović, M., Nikolic, V., Simonović, P. and Cakić, P. (2012). Parasitofauna of freshwater fishes in the Serbian open waters: a checklist of parasites if freshwater fishes in Serbian open waters. Revue in Fish Biology and Fisheries 22, 297–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fobert, E., Fox, M. G., Ridgway, M. and Copp, G. H. (2011). Heated competition: how climate change will affect non-native pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus and native perch Perca fluviatilis interactions in the U.K. Journal of Fish Biology 79, 15921607.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garnier, J., Billen, G. and Palfner, L. (1999). Understanding the oxygen budget of the Mosel drainage network with the concept of heterotrophic/autotrophic sequences: the Riverstrahler approach. Hydrobiologia 410, 151166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, J. M. and Leggett, W. C. (1985). Experimental and field evidence for inter- and intraspecific competition in two freshwater fishes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 42, 280286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hockley, F. A., Williams, C. F., Reading, A. J., Taylor, N. G. H. and Cable, J. (2011). Parasite fauna of introduced pumpkinseed fish Lepomis gibbosus: first British record of Onchocleidus dispar (Monogenea). Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 97, 6573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, G. L. (1999). Parasites of North American Freshwater Fishes. Cornell University Press, 539 pp.Google Scholar
Izvekova, G. I. and Solovyev, M. M. (2012). The activity of digestive enzymes of the pike Esox lucius L. infected with the cestode Triaenophorus nodulosus (Pallas). Inland Water Biology 5, 113118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keast, A. (1978). Feeding interrelationships between age-groups of pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus) and comparisons with bluegill (L. macrochirus). Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 35, 1227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Košuthová, L., Koščo, J., Letková, V., Košuth, P. and Manko, P. (2009). New records of endoparasitic helminths in alien invasive fishes from the Carpathian region. Biologia 64, 776780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krone, O. (2007). Endoparasites. In Pathology. Raptor Research and Management Techniques, Vol. 17C, Hancock House, Surrey, British Columbia, Canada, 318327.Google Scholar
Kuchta, R., Vlčková, R., Poddubnaya, L. G., Gustinelli, A., Dzika, E. and Scholz, T. (2007). Invalidity of three Palaearctic species of Triaenophorus tapeworms (Cestoda: Pseudophyllidea): evidence from morphometric analysis of scolex hooks. Folia Parasitologica 54, 3442.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuperman, B. I. (1973). Tapeworms of the Genus Triaenophorus, Parasites of Fishes. Amerind Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi.Google Scholar
Kuperman, B. I. and Smirnova, L. I. (1970). Influence of Triaenophorus nodulosus Pallas) (Cestoda, Pseudophyllidea) on young perch of the current year. Fisheries Research Board of Canada 1470, 116.Google Scholar
Lahnsteiner, F., Kletzl, M. and Weismann, T. (2009). The risk of parasite transfer to juvenile fishes by live copepod food with the example Triaenophorus crassus and Triaenophorus nodulosus . Aquaculture 295, 120125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Cren, E. D. (1951). The length-weight relationship and seasonal cycle in gonad weight and condition in the perch (Perca fluviatilis). Journal of Animal Ecology 2, 201219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, J. (2002). Parasites and the Behaviour of Animals. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Pascal, M., Lorvelec, O. and Vigne, J. D. (2006). Invasions Biologiques et Extinctions: 11 000 ans d'histoire des Vertébrés en France. Editions Belin-Quae, Paris, 350 pp.Google Scholar
Pasternak, A. F., Pulkkinen, K., Mikheev, V. N., Hasu, T. and Valtonen, E. T. (1999). Factors affecting abundance of Triaenophorus infection in Cyclops strenuous, and parasite-induced changes in host fitness. International Journal for Parasitology 29, 17931801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piasecki, W. and Falandysz, M. (1994). Preliminary survey on parasite fauna of pumpkinseed sunfish, Lepomis gibbosus (Linnaeus, 1758) (Pisces, Teleostei, Centrarchidae) from warm-water discharge canal of the ‘Pomorzany’ power plant in Szczecin, Poland. Acta Ichtyologica et Piscatoria 24, 87100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pilecka-Rapacz, M. and Sobecka, E. (2008). Parasitic nematodes of pumpkinseed sunfish (Lepomis gibbosus L., 1758) from warm-water canal of a power plant in Szczecin, Poland. Wiadomosci Parazytologiczne 54, 213216.Google ScholarPubMed
Pulkkinen, K. and Valtonen, E. T. (1999). Accumulation of plerocercoids of Triaenophorus crassus in the second intermediate host Coregonus lavaretus and their effect on growth of the host. Journal of Fish Biology 55, 115126.Google Scholar
Shaw, D. J., Grenfell, B. T. and Dobson, A. P. (1998). Patterns of macroparasite aggregation in wildlife host populations. Parasitology 117, 597610.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sterud, E. and Jorgensen, A. (2006). Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus (Linnaeus, 1758) (Centrarchidae) and associated parasites introduced to Norway. Aquatic Invasions 4, 278280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stromberg, P. C. and Crites, J. L. (1974). Triaenophoriasis in Lake Erie white bass, Morone chrysops . Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 10, 352358.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vanacker, M., Masson, G. and Beisel, J.-N. (2012). Host switch and infestation by Ligula intestinalis L. in a silver bream (Blicca bjoerkna L.) population. Parasitology 139, 406417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vitule, J. R. S., Freire, C. A. and Simberloff, D. (2009). Introduction of non-native freshwater fish can certainly be bad. Fish Fisheries 10, 98108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Altmetric attention score


Usage data cannot currently be displayed.

Hostname: page-component-79f79cbf67-td25k Total loading time: 0.408 Render date: 2020-12-03T04:18:25.793Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags last update: Thu Dec 03 2020 04:05:06 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) Feature Flags: { "metrics": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "peerReview": true, "crossMark": true, "comments": true, "relatedCommentaries": true, "subject": true, "clr": false, "languageSwitch": true }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@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 sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent 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.

Impact of the cestode Triaenophorus nodulosus on the exotic Lepomis gibbosus and the autochthonous Perca fluviatilis
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and 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 <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Impact of the cestode Triaenophorus nodulosus on the exotic Lepomis gibbosus and the autochthonous Perca fluviatilis
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and 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 <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Impact of the cestode Triaenophorus nodulosus on the exotic Lepomis gibbosus and the autochthonous Perca fluviatilis
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *