Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T08:54:43.933Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Consequences of microhabitat selection for reproductive success in the parasitic copepod Neobrachiella spinicephala (Lernaeopodidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 May 2010

J. T. TIMI ,
A. L. LANFRANCHI  and
R. POULIN
J. T. TIMI
Affiliation:
Laboratorio de Parasitología, Departamento de Biología, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Funes 3350, (7600) Mar del Plata, Argentina
A. L. LANFRANCHI
Affiliation:
Laboratorio de Parasitología, Departamento de Biología, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Funes 3350, (7600) Mar del Plata, Argentina
R. POULIN*
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand
*
*Corresponding author: Department of Zoology, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand. Tel: +64 3 479 7983. Fax: +64 3 479 7584. E-mail: robert.poulin@stonebow.otago.ac.nz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Narrow site specificity in parasites is assumed to be associated with fitness benefits, such as higher reproductive success, although this is never quantified. We linked the body mass and combined mass of egg sacs of female copepods, Neobrachiella spinicephala, parasitic on the sandperch, Pinguipes brasilianus, to attachment sites on the host. Adult females attach permanently either on the lips, the margins of the operculum, or the base of pectoral or pelvic fins. In addition to influences of sampling site, season and host body length, our analyses revealed important fitness effects. First, attachment site significantly influenced copepod body mass; independent of other factors, copepods at the base of fins were 32% larger than those on the lips or operculum. Second, the mass of egg sacs was almost always greater if the copepod was attached at the base of fins rather than to the lip or operculum. Thus, a female weighing 6 mg would, on average, produce 40% larger egg sacs if attached to the base of fins. However, copepods were much more likely to attach at the base of fins on small fish, and on either the lip or the operculum on large fish. We propose that constraints varying with fish size account for the shift from optimal to suboptimal attachment sites as a function of increasing host size. By measuring differences in fitness components between attachment sites, our approach allows hypothesis testing regarding microhabitat selection.

Keywords

site specificitybody sizeegg sacslatitudePinguipes brasilianusArgentina
Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 137 , Issue 11 , September 2010 , pp. 1687 - 1694
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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

Abdullahi, B. A. (1990). The effect of temperature on reproduction in three species of cyclopoid copepods. Hydrobiologia 196, 101–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakun, A. and Parrish, R. H. (1991). Comparative studies of coastal fish reproductive habitats: the anchovy (Engraulis anchoita) of the Southwestern Atlantic. ICES Journal of Marine Science 48, 343–361.Google Scholar
Benz, G. W. (1993). Evolutionary biology of Siphonostomatoida (Copepoda) parasitic on vertebrates. Ph.D. thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
Chilton, N. B., Bull, C. M. and Andrews, R. H. (1992). Niche segregation in reptile ticks: attachment sites and reproductive success of females. Oecologia 90, 255–259.Google Scholar
Davey, J. T. (1980). Spatial distribution of the copepod parasite Lernanthropus kroyeri on the gills of bass, Dicentrarchus labrax (L.). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 60, 1061–1067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emson, R. H., Mladenov, P. V. and Wilkie, I. C. (1985). Studies of the biology of the West Indian copepod Ophiopsyllus reductus (Siphonostomatoida: Cancerillidae) parasitic upon the brittlestar Ophiocomella ophiactoides. Journal of Natural History 19, 151–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etchegoin, J. A. and Sardella, N. H. (1990). Some ecological aspects of the copepod parasites of the common hake, Merluccius hubbsi, from the Argentine-Uruguayan coasts. International Journal for Parasitology 20, 1009–1014.Google Scholar
Etchegoin, J. A., Timi, J. T. and Lanfranchi, A. L. (2006). Redescription of Neobrachiella spinicephala (Ringuelet, 1945) parasitic on Pinguipes brasilianus Cuvier, 1829 from Argentina, with the first description of the male. Acta Parasitologica 51, 290–293.Google Scholar
Johnston, C. E. and Dykeman, D. (1987). Observations on body proportions and egg production in the female parasitic copepod (Salmincola salmoneus) from the gills of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) kelts exposed to different temperatures and photoperiods. Canadian Journal of Zoology 65, 415–419.Google Scholar
Kabata, Z. (1981). Copepoda (Crustacea) parasitic on fishes: problems and perspectives. Advances in Parasitology 19, 1–71.Google Scholar
Lester, R. J. G. and Roubal, F. R. (1995). Phylum Arthropoda. In Fish Diseases and Disorders, Vol. 1: Protozoan and Metazoan Infections (ed. Woo, P. T. K.), pp. 475–598. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Loot, G., Poulet, N., Reyjol, Y., Blanchet, S. and Lek, S. (2004). The effects of the ectoparasite Tracheliastes polycolpus (Copepoda: Lernaeopodidae) on the fins of rostrum dace (Leuciscus leuciscus burdigalensis). Parasitology Research 94, 16–23.Google Scholar
Poulin, R. (1995). Clutch size and egg size in free-living and parasitic copepods: a comparative analysis. Evolution 49, 325–336.Google Scholar
Poulin, R. (2007). Evolutionary Ecology of Parasites, 2nd Edn. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raibaut, A. and Trilles, J. P. (1993). The sexuality of parasitic crustaceans. Advances in Parasitology 32, 367–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Development Core Team (2009). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria (URL, http://www.R-project.org).Google Scholar
Rohde, K. (1979). A critical evaluation of intrinsic and extrinsic factors responsible for niche restriction in parasites. American Naturalist 114, 648–671.Google Scholar
Rohde, K. (1991). Intra- and interspecific interactions in low density populations in resource-rich habitats. Oikos 60, 91–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohde, K. (1993). Ecology of Marine Parasites, 2nd Edn. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Rohde, K. (1994). Niche restriction in parasites: proximate and ultimate causes. Parasitology 109, S69–S84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sukhdeo, M. V. K. (1990). The relationship between intestinal location and fecundity in adult Trichinella spiralis. International Journal for Parasitology 21, 855–858.Google Scholar
Sukhdeo, M. V. K. and Sukhdeo, S. C. (1994). Optimal habitat selection by helminths within the host environment. Parasitology 109, S41–S55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tedla, S. and Fernando, C. H. (1970). On the biology of Ergasilus confusus Bere, 1931 (Copepoda), infesting yellow perch, Perca fluviatilis L., in the Bay of Quinte, Lake Ontario, Canada. Crustaceana 19, 1–14.Google Scholar
Timi, J. T. (2003). Habitat selection by Lernanthropus cynoscicola (Copepoda: Lernanthropidae): host as physical environment, a major determinant of niche restriction. Parasitology 127, 155–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timi, J. T., Lanfranchi, A. L. and Etchegoin, J. A. (2009). Seasonal stability and spatial variability of parasites in Brazilian sandperch Pinguipes brasilianus from the Northern Argentine Sea: evidence for stock discrimination. Journal of Fish Biology 74, 1206–1225.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Timi, J. T., Lanfranchi, A. L. and Luque, J. L. (2010). Similarity in parasite communities of the teleost fish Pinguipes brasilianus in the southwestern Atlantic: infracommunities as a tool to detect geographical patterns. International Journal for Parasitology 40, 243–254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Timi, J. T., Lanfranchi, A. L. and Poulin, R. (2005). Is there a trade-off between fecundity and egg volume in the parasitic copepod Lernanthropus cynoscicola? Parasitology Research 95, 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Damme, P. A., Maertens, D., Arrumm, A., Hamerlynck, O. and Ollevier, F. (1993). The role of Callionymus lyra and C. reticulatus in the life cycle of Lernaeocera lusci in Belgian coastal waters (Southern Bight of the North Sea). Journal of Fish Biology 42, 395–401.Google Scholar
Whittington, I. D. and Ernst, I. (2002). Migration, site-specificity and development of Benedenia lutjani (Monogenea: Capsalidae) on the surface of its host, Lutjanus carponotatus (Pisces: Lutjanidae). Parasitology 124, 423–434.Google Scholar