Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T04:00:13.331Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Community structure of helminth parasites of the tuna, Euthynnus affinis, from the Visakhapatnam coast, Bay of Bengal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2024

R. Madhavi  and
B.K. Sai Ram
R. Madhavi*
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam 530003, India
B.K. Sai Ram
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam 530003, India
*
*Fax: (0891) 555547
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An analysis is made of the community structure of the helminth parasites of the tuna Euthynnus affinis collected off the coast of Visakhapatnam, Bay of Bengal. The helminth fauna comprised 23 species, consisting of two monogeneans, 18 digeneans, one larval cestode, one nematode and one acanthocephalan. Didymozoids, represented by 14 species, were the dominant members of the parasite spectrum. The parasite assemblage is characterized by species richness as well as a high diversity. Most of the parasites found, the didymozoids in particular, were host specialists, exhibiting a high degree of host specificity. The fauna comprised three core species, four satellite species and many secondary species, with no potential for interaction among them but the degree of predictability is high in that each infracommunity comprised two or three core species superimposed by a few secondary species. Many host factors such as the varied diet, high vagility, long life span and endothermy appear to have contributed to the development of the species rich and diverse parasite communities in the tuna. There was evidence for a decrease in parasite density and an increase in diversity with increase in host size, indicating that host size has a profound influence on the component community structure.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Helminthology , Volume 74 , Issue 4 , December 2000 , pp. 337 - 342
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2000

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

Bush, A.O., Aho, J.M. & Kennedy, C.R. (1990) Ecological versus phylogenetic determinants of helminth parasite community richness. Evolutionary Ecology 4, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bush, A.O., Lafferty, K.D., Lotz, T.M. & Shostak, A.W. (1997) Parasitology meets ecology on its own terms: Margoliset al. revisited. Journal of Parasitology 83, 575–583.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cislo, P.R. & Cairn, J.N. (1993) The parasite assemblage in the spiral intestine of the sharkMustelus canis . Journal of Parasitology 79, 886–899.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Esch, G.W., Bush, A.O. & Aho, J.M. (1990) Parasite communities: patterns and processes . London, Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Hanski, I. (1982) Dynamics of regional distribution: the core and satellite species hypothesis. Oikos 38, 210–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayward, C.J and Perera, K.M.L. & Rohde, K. (1998) Assemblage of ectoparasites of a pelagic fish, slimy mackerel (Scomber australasicus), from south-eastern Australia. International Journal for Parasitology 28, 263–273.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holmes, J.C. (1990) Helminth communities in marine fishes. pp. 101–130 in Esch, G.W., Bush, A.O. & Aho, J.M. (Eds) Parasite communities: patterns and processes . London, Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, C.R., Bush, A.O. & Aho, J.M. (1986) Patterns in helminth communities: why are birds and fish different?. Parasitology 93, 205–215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kennedy, C.R. & Williams, H.H. (1989) Helminth community diversity in a marine fish, Raja batis L. Journal of Fish Biology 34, 971–972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leong, T.S. & Holmes, J.C. (1981) Communities of metazoan parasites in open water fishes of Cold Lake, Alberta. Journal of Fish Biology 18, 693–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lester, R.J.G., Barnes, A. & Habib, G. (1985) Parasites of skipjack tuna, Katsuwonus pelamis: fishery implications. Fishery Bulletin 83, 343–357.Google Scholar
Poulin, R. & Rohde, K. (1997) Comparing the richness of metazoan ectoparasite communities of marine fishes: controlling for host phylogeny. Oecologia 110, 278–283.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rohde, K. (1993) Ecology of marine parasites . 2nd edn. Wallingford, Oxon, CAB International.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohde, K. & Heap, M. (1998) Latitudinal differences in species and community richness and in community structure of metazoan endo- and ectoparasites of marine teleost fish. International Journal for Parasitology 28, 461–474.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rohde, K., Hayward, C., Heap, M. & Gosper, D. (1994) A tropical assemblage of ectoparasites: gills and head parasites of Lethrinus miniatus (Teleostei, Lethrinidae). International Journal for Parasitology 24, 1031–1053.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sai Ram, B.K. (1993) Some aspects of biology of scombrid fishes and host-parasite relationships of tunas of Visakhapatnam coast, Bay of Bengal. PhD thesis, Andhra University.Google Scholar
Thoney, D.A. (1991) Population dynamics and community analysis of the parasite fauna of juvenile spot, Leiostomus xanthurus (Lacépède) and Atlantic croaker, Micropogonias undulatus (Linnaeus), (Sciaenidae) in two estuaries along the middle Atlantic coast of the United States. Journal of Fish Biology 39, 515–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thoney, D.A. (1993) Community ecology of the parasites of adult spot, Leiostomus xanthurus, and Atlantic croaker, Micropogonias undulatus (Sciaenidae) in the Cape Hatteras region. Journal of Fish Biology 43, 781–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar