Parasitism of dolfinfhishes, <i>Coryphaena hippurus</i> and <i>Coryphaena equiselis</i>, in the western Mediterranean (Balearic Islands) and central-eastern Atlantic (Canary Islands)

Abstract

SUMMARY: A total of 648 dolphinfishes were examined for internal and external parasites in western Mediterranean (Balearic Islands) and central-eastern Atlantic (Canary Islands) waters in order to make a comparative study between the two areas. The specimens studied from the Mediterranean Sea was Coryphaena hippurus, with 62 large individuals captured from May to September and 497 juveniles captured from August to December. The specimens studied from the central-eastern Atlantic were 39 adult C. hippurus and 49 adult Coryphaena equiselis. Parasites were found in 70% of the fish examined, and represented a total of nine endoparasitic taxa: six digeneans (Class Trematoda, Subclass Digenea; Dinurus tornatus, Dinurus breviductus, Dinurus longisinus, Lecithocladium excisum, Bathycotyle branchialis and Hirudinella sp.), two nematodes (Class Nematoda, Order Spirurida; Philometroides sp. and Metabronema magna) and one acanthocephalan (Phyllum Acanthocephala; Rhadinorhynchus pristis). Seven crustacean copepod ectoparasites were identified: Caligus quadratus, Caligus productus, Caligus bonito, Caligus coryphaenae (Family Caligidae) and Euryphorus nymphae (Family Euriphoridae) were found in gill mucus masses or on the inner surface of the operculum, the lernaeopodid Neobrachiella coryphaenae (Family Lernaeopodidae) was attached to gill filaments and the pennellid Pennella filosa (Family Pennellidae) was anchored to fins and rays or, deeply, to muscular tissue and abdominal cavity. The relationships between feeding habits, parasite recruitment and parasite transmission were analysed, some ecological aspects of all the parasitic species are discussed, and some comments are made on parasite-host relationships.

Feeding Ecology of Dolphinfish in the Western Gulf of Mexico

“…The most prevalent gastric parasite we observed, Dinurus, has been observed in Dolphinfish from the Mediterranean and Caribbean seas (Carbonell et al 1999) and is a characteristic parasite of the species (Williams and Bunkley-Williams 2009). The proposed life cycle for Dinurus suggests that either benthic gastropods or planktivorous fishes (e.g., clupeids) act as intermediate hosts, of which Dolphinfish are the definitive host (Carbonell et al 1999). This scenario appears plausible in the Gulf of Mexico given that the size-class with the highest occurrence of clupeid fish in the diet (i.e., 100-124 cm) had the greatest prevalence of Dinurus infection.…”

“…High species richness and a high intensity of parasite infection are common in epipelagic fishes (Marcogliese 2002). Dolphinfish are host to a diverse and unique community of gastric parasites (Burnett-Herkes 1974;Raptopoulou and Lambertsen 1987;Dyer et al 1997;Carbonell et al 1999;Williams and Bunkley-Williams 2009). Specifically, Dolphinfish are the definitive host for digenean parasites of the genus Dinurus, which are commonly found in large numbers in the stomach cavity (Carbonell et al 1999;Williams and Bunkley-Williams 2009).…”

Occurrence of dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus)and pompano dolphinfish (Coryphaena equiselis)in the Canary islands revealed by genetic analysis

“…A similar poleward migration pattern has been reported in the central-west Atlantic (Oxendorf & Hunte, 1986a,b). A connection between Atlantic and Mediterranean fisheries of C. hippurus has been known since ancient times and has recently been demonstrated with parasite studies (Carbonell et al 1999). A lack of genetic differentiation between a Canary Islands sample and several Mediterranean samples of C. hippurus suggested gene flow between the two areas (Pla & Pujolar 1999).…”

Insular stock identification of <EM>Serranus atricauda</EM> (Pisces: Serranidae) through the presence of <EM>Ceratothoa steindachneri</EM> (Isopoda, Cymothoidae) and <EM>Pentacapsula cutanea</EM> (Myxozoa, Pentacapsulidae) in the Canary Islands

“…comm.). Otherwise, it is well known that parasites are potentially useful as biological tags and their environmental specificity allows host movements to be determined (Sindermann, 1983;Lester, 1990;Wichowski, 1990;Carbonell et al 1998Carbonell et al , 1999Grutter, 1998), because fish can acquire parasites during their movement between areas. Also, due to their high specificity, parasites may indicate local, bioecological features between both individuals and populations or stocks from areas with different conditions (Margolis, 1998).…”

“…The application of these methods depends on simplicity, number of samples and, in a general context, the cost-effectiveness of the results obtained. Parasites are thus considered as biological tags (Kennedy, 1979;Chenoweth et al, 1986;Leaman and Kabata, 1987;Lester, 1990;Dalton, 1991;MacKenzie and Longshaw, 1995;Grutter, 1998) and the analysis of their geographical distributions is an excellent source of information on the movements of the host fish species (Campbell et al, 1980;Wichowski, 1990;Carbonell et al, 1999). Although such an analysis may allow us to discriminate between distinct fish populations or stocks, the unequivocal discrimination usually requires methods based on genetics.…”