Abundance and distribution of endoparasitic helminths in Anabas testudineus (Bloch, 1792) from a polluted beel of Bangladesh

Abstract

Abundance and distribution of the endoparasitic helminths in Anabas testudineus (collected from a polluted water body) was analyzed. Out of 50 fish observed, 42 (84%) were parasitized by at least one species. Five metazoan endoparasites, one trematode (Neopecoelina saharanpuriensis) and four nematodes (Ascaridida sp., Contracaecum sp., Camallanus anabantis and C. pearsei) were recorded. Prevalence was higher in female (90%) hosts than males (75%). A significant positive correlation was observed between the standard length of the host and the abundance for parasites except Ascaridida sp.Nematodes were the more prevalent group (72%) than trematodes (48%). No parasitic species was observed as central species category; three parasites (N.saharanpuriensis, Ascaridida sp. and Contracaecum sp.) were considered as secondary and Camallanus spp. as satellite species. All nematode parasites showed aggregated distribution pattern and the trematode showed random distribution pattern. Interspecies association between two species of parasite was low.

A preliminary survey on parasitic occurrence in indigenous climbing perch, Anabas testudineus (Bloch, 1972) from West Bengal state of India

“…Endoparasitic helminths of A. testudineus were well studied rather than the other group of parasites such as protozoans, crustaceans, myxozoans, acanthocephalans, etc [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]. In consistent with the present study, various workers recovered common intestinal nematode Camallanus anabantis from A. testudineus [1,[15][16][17][18][19][20][21].…”

“…In consistent with the present study, various workers recovered common intestinal nematode Camallanus anabantis from A. testudineus [1,[15][16][17][18][19][20][21]. This intestinal parasite also reported to be harboured by many other indigenous fishes such as Clarias batrachus, Channa gachua,…”

Distribution patterns of Procamallanus (Spirocamallanus) inopinatus (Nematoda: Camallanidae) and its interactions with freshwater fish in Brazil

“…intestine, stomach, pyloric caecum and abdominal cavity) in the same population of fish, with different levels of infection together and with an aggregated dispersion pattern, seems allow coexistence of parasite species that would be excluded. Therefore, these findings corroborate the suggestion that the levels of different parasites shared by the same host may favor coexistence of more species of parasites, since large phylogenetic differences allow potentially competing parasites to consume the same resources without being sensitive to other parasite species (Geets & Ollevier, 1996;Bellay et al, 2013;Bhuiyan et al, 2014;Salgado-Maldonado et al, 2016, 2019. The findings from the present study are in line with this, because in most of the parasite-host systems investigated here, the gastrointestinal tract was the site most frequently infected by P. (S.) inopinatus.…”

“…Several studies on wild fish populations have emphasized the importance of the hosts' diet and trophic level in relation to the diversity and parameters of endohelminth parasite infections (Choudhury & Dick, 2000;Simková et al, 2001;Timi et al, 2011;Poulin & Leung, 2011;Gonçalves et al, 2016;Hoshino et al, 2016;Ferreira et al, 2019;Baia et al, 2018;Negreiros et al, 2019;Ferreira et al, 2019). Endohelminth larvae complete their life cycles when ingested by their definitive hosts and are therefore dependent on prey-predator interactions (Choudhury & Dick, 2000;Timi et al, 2011;Poulin & Leung, 2011;Bhuiyan et al, 2014;Gonçalves et al, 2016;Hoshino et al, 2016;Baia et al, 2018). For this reason, fish at higher trophic levels (e.g.…”

Community Structure Analysis Metazoan Parasites of Channa punctatus (Bloch, 1800) from Meghadrigedda Reservoir of Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh, India

“…Many workers have worked on systematics of parasites, biology of fish, ecology of parasites and histopathology of tissues infected by parasites (Ramadevi and Rao, 1974;Kanth and Srivastava, 1987;Koul et al, 1991;Chowdhary, 1992;Sinha et al, 2008;Wani and Magray, 2008;Pardeshi and Hiware, 2011;Chandra et al, 2011;Gupta et al, 2012;Verma and Capoor, 2013). However, very few investigations on parasite community structure of freshwater fishes was conducted worldwide by Sirikanchana (1983), Nahar et al (1993), Parween and Rahman (2000), Poulin (2001), Chaiyapo et al (2007), Chandra (2008), Alam et al (2010), Bhuiyan (2011), Rakibuzzaman et al (2011), Ayaz et al (2013), Miah et al (2013) and Bhuiyan et al, (2014). These types of ecological studies are scarce in Indian Sub-continent especially in Andhra Pradesh.…”