DEDICATED TO BELOVED PARENTS (LATE) (BHUKYA BALU & RANGI) “PARASITIC BIOLOGICAL TAGS IN FISH STOCK IDENTIFICATION, BIOLOGY AND FISHERIES MANAGEMENT STUDIES” SUBMITTED BY: BHUKY BHASKAR (TELANGANA STATE, INDIA) DEPT. OF: FISHERIES RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
DEDICATED TO BELOVED PARENTS (LATE)(BHUKYA BALU & RANGI)
“PARASITIC BIOLOGICAL TAGS IN FISH STOCK IDENTIFICATION, BIOLOGY AND FISHERIES
MANAGEMENT STUDIES”
SUBMITTED BY:
BHUKY BHASKAR
(TELANGANA STATE, INDIA)
DEPT. OF: FISHERIES RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Introduction
• Parasitic tags are started using by Dogiel & Dykhovski (1939) on the
Acipenserids in Caspian Sea & distinguished two groups of stocks.
• Fishery biology & management needs demonstrated for a number of
Important fishes as salmon & herring also redfish, flounders, cod,
Whiting, plaice, haddock & other fishes.
• Parasites provided the most definitive information
Example: Myxosporidians, encysted larval helminths & parasite
Copepods.
Introduction
• Parasites as tags recognized that they have helped answer questions on
host diet & feeding behaviour, movements & ranges, connectivity of
stocks, recruitment patterns of juveniles & phylogenies.
• Parasites used as bio-indicators of pollution and in population studies to
discriminate stocks.
• Definition of stock a spatially distinct group of marine organisms
exhibit no significant mixing with neighbouring individuals’. It is
essentially self-reproducing group (Charters et al., 2010).
General principles behind parasitic tags
• Fish can become infected with a parasite only when fish become withinendemic area of that parasite.
• If infected fish are found outside area, we can infer that these fish hadbeen within that area at some time in their past history.
• Endemic area is that geographic region in which conditions are suitablefor the transmission of the parasite.
• Information on the maximum life span of parasite in that particular hostallows us to estimate the period of time.
• Since the fish left the parasites endemic areas that can be used the moreinformation can be obtained about the past movements of fishPopulations & stock structure.
Negative aspects of Parasites
• Parasites might on superficial examination seem to be unlikely
prospects as tags for fish.
• Parasitic life cycle are often complex or still unknown, their ecology
which involves one or more hosts.
• External environment is even more complex & Parasitic identification is
often uncertain or subject to disagreement.
Characteristics of ideal natural tags
1). Significant geographical variation in prevalence should exist, the
Parasite being common in one population & uncommon or rare in
Another.
2). The parasite should be detected easily preferably grass examination.
3). The life cycle of parasite should involve only a single host
Preferably.
4). Definitive identification of the parasite should be feasible as
Identification of the host species & any sub species.
Characteristics of ideal natural tags
5). The parasite should have a minimum effect on survival of the host.
6). The prevalence of the parasite should be relative stable from season to
season and year to year.
7). The parasite should persist in the host fish for at least the duration of
the study period (suggested minimum of 2 years) & preferably longer.
Selection features of ideal parasitic tag
1). It should have significantly different levels of infection (prevalence, intensity &
Abundance of infection) in the subject host in different parts of study area.
2). It should be persist in the host for a long period of time, the minimum time
Depending on the nature of study.
For stock identification & recruitment studies, only parasites with life span of
More than one year(>1yr) should be used,
For studies of seasonal migrations, parasites life span of less than one year(<1yr)
Are acceptable.
3). Parasites with single-host life cycles, as monogenetic trematodes &
Most parasitic crustaceans are the simplest to use.
Complex life cycle as digenetic trematodes, tapeworms, nematodes
& acanthocephalans, involving 2 or more stages in different hosts, are
More difficult to use.
•Digenetic trematodes have advantages as tags over other taxonomic
Groups of parasites due to highly specific to the primary host.
• Endemic area of a digenean is largely determined by the
Geographical distribution of its mollusc host.
4). The level of infection should remain relatively constant from year toYear.
The effects of annual variations, however, can be nullified by followingInfection levels in single year-classes of the subject host over severalYears.
5). The parasite should be detected & identified. Examination of the hostShould involve the minimum of dissection time.
6). Parasites that are serious pathogens, particularly those that affect hostbehavior, should be avoided.
The most commonly used parasites as tags are larval anisakidNematodes, probably because they are among the most common &Widespread parasites of teleost fish.
Identification of parasites for tagging purpose:
• Parasites are best examined when fresh & live, but this is not always Possible.
Nomarski interference contrast microscopy is recommended For protozoans &
Small fresh helminths.
• Phase contrast is recommended for examining sporozoan protozoans & Small
Crustaceans.
• SEM is useful for confirming the identity of protozoans & small Helminths.
Parasitic tags of Tenualosa ilisha as an indicator of fish Immigration in Iraqi waters (Bannai & Muhammad, 2016)
Taxonomic
position of the
parasites
Class Order Family Genus Species
Nothobomoloc
us sp.
Tremato
da
Cyclopoida Iomolochidae Nothobomol
ocus
Nothobomolocus
Sp.
Faustula
faustula
Strigeataide
a
Fellodistomat
idae
Faustula Faustula
Faustula
Ectenurus sp. Plagiorchiid
ae
Hemiuridae Ectenurus Ectenurus
papillatus
The specimens of T. ilisha collected throughout the migration season, ranged from
50-460 mm TL and 0.97-1253 g. Total length of females ranged from 90460 mm.
Finding: T. ilisha migrates from the Gulf region to the marshes area.
Tenualosa
ilisha
Life cycle of some common parasites infecting fish
Parasite species 1st or primary host 2nd host Definitive final host
Derogenes varicus (Digenea) Natica spp. (gastropod) Crustacean and
Chaetognaths
Telost fish: many spp.
Cryptocotyle lingua (Digenea) Littorina spp, (gastropoda) Teleost fish Piscivorous birds
Renicola sp (Digenea) Turritella spp. (gastropoda) Small teleost fish Piscivorous birds
Prosorhynchus gracilesens(Digenea) Abra spp. (bivalve) Gadoid fish Angler fish
Lophius piscatorius
Lacistorhynchus tenuis (cestode) copepods Pelagic teleost fish Elasmobranch fish
Diphyllobothrium spp. Cestode) copepods Teleost fish Large Piscivorous teleost fish
Anisakis simplex (Nematoda) Eupausiids Teleost fish cetaceans
Hysterothylacium aduncum(Nematoda) crustaceans Small teleost fish Large Piscivorous teleost fish
Echinorhynchus gadi (Acanthocephalan) Gammarid crustaeceans none Gadoid fish
Corynosoma spp.
(Acanthocephalan)
Amphipods Teleost fish Seals
Lernocera branchialis (copepod) Flat fish, lump fish None Gadid fish
Derogenes varicus (Digenea)
Derogenesvaricus
(Digenea)
1st Natica spp.
(gastropod
2nd Crustacean &
Chaetognaths
Final host: Telost fish many spp.
Telost fish
Cryptocotylelingua
(Digenea)
Littorinaspp,
(Gastropoda)
Teleost fishPiscivorousbirds
Piscivorous birds
Renicola sp. (Digenea)
1st Turritellaspp.
(gastropoda)
2nd Small Teleost fish
Definite host Piscivorous
Birds
Renicola sp (Digenea)
Attack
Renicola sp Small teleost fish
Prosorhynchus gracilesens (Digenea)
Abra spp. (bivalve)
Gadoid fishAngler fish
Lophiuspiscatorius
Prosorhynchusgracilesens(Digenea)
(bivalve
Lacistorhynchus tenuis (cestode)
Lacistorhynchustenuis
(cestode)
Copepods
Pelagic teleost Fish
Elasmobranch Fish
Copepod (Lernea spp)
Diphyllobothrium spp. Cestode
Diphyllobothriumspp. Cestode
Copepods
Teleost Fish
Large Piscivorous
Teleost Fish
Diphyllobothrium spp.
Hysterothylaciumaduncum (Nematoda)
Crustaceans
Small teleost
fish
Large Piscivorou
s teleostfish
Crustaceans
Small teleost fish
Large Piscivorous teleost fish
Echinorhynchus gadi (Acanthocephalan)
Echinorhynchusgadi
Gammaridcrustaeceans
noneGadoid fish
Gammarid crustaeceans
Gadoid fish
Echinorhynchus gadi
Corynosoma spp. (Acanthocephalan)
Corynosoma sp.
Amphipods
Teleostfish
Seals
Corynosoma sp.
Teleost fish
seals
Lernocera branchialis (copepod)
Lernocerabranchialis(copepod)
1st Flat fish, lump
fish
2nd
None
Final Gadid
fish
Flat fish
Gadied fish
Lump fish
Lernocera branchialis
(copepod)
Life cycle of some common parasites infecting fish
bivalve Cestode on teleost
Diphyllobothrium spp
on brown troutEchinorhynchus gadi
Gammarid crustaeceans Gadoid fish
Corynosoma spp.
(Acanthocephalan)
Life cycle of some common parasites infecting fish
Corynosoma spp.
(Acanthocephalan)
Lernocera
branchialis
(copepod) cod
Gadusa marhua
Antarctic krillHumpback
anglerfish
Hunoback
anglerfish on
prey
Selected studies using parasites as Biological tagsFish
species
Geographic
area
Parasite tags Significant finding
Atlantic
herring
Clupea
herengzus
North sea Anisakis larvae
(Nematode)
Prevalence increased in 1966-68 & decreased in
1969-72 possibly due to change in migration
behavior
North sea Lacistrorhynchus
(cestode) Renicola
(trematode
metacercariae)
juveniles of autumn – spawning herring
populations from Biaden & Scottish coastal waters
North sea Lacistrorhynchus
(cestode) Renicola
sp.
recruitment migration of autumn- spawning herring
in the north sea & to north west of Scotland
Selected studies using parasites as Biological tagsFish species Geographic area Parasite tags Significant finding
Atlantic herring
Clupea herengus
North sea Eimeria sardine
&
E. clupearum
(coccidians)
Incidence of coccidians found uniform
no significant diff in various parts of
north sea & west coast of Scotland
Middle Atlantic
coast of the U.S
Anisakis larvae
(nematode)
Lower levels of infection from long
Island to Chesapeake Bay than in
areas to the North
North west Atlantic Anisakis larvae
(nematode)
Increase in prevalence with increasing
latitude, Georges Bank fish having the
lowest & Nova scotia fish the highest
prevalence
Selected studies using parasites as Biological tagsNorth west Atlantic Anisakis larvae,
Trephanorhynch
(cestode) larvae
lack of intermingling of gulf of
St, Lawrence & Gulf of Maine
fish
Pacific herring
(Clupea pallasi)
Alaska, British
Columbia &
Washington coastal
water
Anisakis simplex,
Thynnascaris adunca
(Trematode)
Reliable separation of adjacent
spawning stocks could not be
accomplished
Sockeye salmon
(Oncorhynchus
keta)
North pacific Trianophorus crassus
(larval cestode)
Distinguished maturing &
juvenile high sea salmon of
Asiatic & North America origin
Salmo salar North
Atlantic
Pomphorhynchus laevis
(Acanthocephalan)
Parasite indicating tributary of origin of
Salmon smolts in several Irish rivers
North
Atlantic
Anisakis simplex indicated that different populations occur
in widely separated N. Atlantic sites.
Miracal river
New
Brunswick
Discotyle saitttata &
Diplostomum spathaceum
(trematode)
Neoechinorhynchus rutile
(Acanthocephalan)
Tributary of origin of smolts was indicated
by parasite frequencies
Whiting
Merlagius
merlagus
North &
British
coastal water
Ceratomyxa arcuate,
Myxidium spaericum
(myxosporidian)
North sea Stocks consist of distinct
northern & southern populations as do the
stocks west of British lies but Irish sea has
a separate stock.
Selected studies using parasites as Biological tags
Selected studies on parasites as Biological tags
Haddock
Melanogramm
us aeglefinus
North sea
NE Atlantic
Gilqinia squali
(Cestode)
Several Haddock subgroups distinguished
results showed a north ward movement along
Scotland east coast
Redfish
Sebastes sp
North west
Atlantic
Sphrion lumpi
copepod)
Major off southern Labrador, SE slope of
Grand Bank & SE gulf of st, Lawerence the
parasite was rare or absent
North west
Atlantic
Sphrion lumpi
(copepod)
High infestationin western gulf of maine but
no infestation on southern Scotian shelf,
indicating absence of substantial intermixing
North west
Atlantic
Sphrion lumpi &
Chondracanthopsis
nodosus (copepods)
Anisakis larvae &
Trephanorhynch larvae
(cestode)
Each major redfish fishing area was discrete
indicating absence of significant intermixing
European Plaice
(Pleuronectes
platessa)
Eastern North
sea
Myxobolus aeglefini
(myxosoridian)
Parasite abundant in plaice from
skagerak but absent or rare in adjacent
Atlantic cod
(Gadusa morhua)
North west
Atlantic
Lernaeocera
branchialis
(copepod)
Stock identification of 4 subgroups,
Northern & southern Gulf of maine,
Georges Bank & southern new Enlgand
Baltic cod
Gadusa morhua
Baltic sea Anisakis simplex &
Contracaecum
aduncum (larval
nematodes)
Parasites differentiated 3 groups of
Baltic cod
Winter flounder
(Pseudopleurone
ctes americanus)
Northwest
Atlantic
Glugea stephani Georges Bank population
geographically isolated from fish on
inshore grounds
Selected studies using parasites as Biological tags
Advantages using parasites over artificial tagging
• 1). Parasite tags are more appropriate for small fishes as clupeids, Deep waterSpecies & crustaceans.
• 2). Each Parasite tag specimen represents a valid observation, whereas withArtificial tags each individual must be sampled, tagged & recaptured to obtain avalid observation.
• 3). Parasite tags are less expensive to use because samples can be obtained fromRoutine sampling programs.
• 4). Use of biological eliminates doubts concerning the possible abnormalBehavior of artificially tagged hosts.
• 5). Parasites used to identify subpopulations of fish distinguished by behavioralDifference, but between which there is still a considerable amount of gene flow.
Other Advantages using parasites
1). Method does not induce major or traumatic external effects on the fish
Because no handling of host fish is involved.
2). The method can be combined with & is enhanced by biochemical
Serological & morphometric, meristic studies of the same samples.
3). Method can be further enhanced by work on parasite biochemical
Speciation or strain differentiation.
Other Advantages using parasites
4). A large proportion of the population is tagged than would be feasible
with artificial tags.
5). In parasitic tagging the fish host needs only to be caught once.
6). Cost of using parasite tag study is usually less than that of a tagging
program.
7). Parasites can provide information useful to solution of biological
problems or useful to management of stocks.
Limitation of biological tagging (1st discussed by Sindermann, 1983)
1) Lack of adequate information on the complex ecology & biology ofaquatic parasites can limit their efficient use as tags.
2) Identification of many parasites species is uncertain,
• Parasite taxonomy has resulted in the identification of two or more‘’Sibling species’’ in parasites previously regarded as comprising asSingle species.
3) Desirable to know the age of host individuals, but in some species ofFish & invertebrates the techniques of age determination have not beenValidated.
Difficulties in using parasite as biological tagging Studies
1). Training and background in parasitology is required of the person who plans and
Institutes the program.
2). Extensive preliminary work is required to identify the parasites that are found to
Determine if geographic differences in prevalence exist and to learn as much as
Possible about ecology and life cycles of parasites selected as candidates.
3). Parasitic life cycle phase is particularly important if the parasitology of host fish
Species is poorly understood.
4). Parasite tags are unsuited for study of movement of individual fish.
Special precautions should be taken when collecting a following types of parasites
5). Correct identification of large number of parasites must be made
Through out the study for some larval helminth parasites. It is difficult &
Time consuming occupation.
6). Each year class of the fish hosts must be considered as a separate
Entity & any study should encompass at least 3 year class.
7). A baseline parasite survey should be made of each population
Sampled at the time of sampling.
Special precautions should be taken when collecting a Following types of parasites
• Special precautions should be taken when collecting a following types ofParasites:
• Myxosporeans: care should be taken to note not only presence of spore butAlso vegetative stages.
• Adult cestode(scoleces) & acanthocephalans(proboscides):
Removed together with a piece of host tissue around the site of attachment toEnsure that entire worm remains intact.
• Larval nematodes: scattered throughout the musculature & other softTissues of the host fish. Detected by candling fillets over a light box or byDigesting them in a pepsin digest solution.
SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS SHOULD BE TAKEN
WHEN COLLECTING A FOLLOWING TYPES OF PARASITES
• Digenean metacercariae and cestode plerocercoides: encysted must be
Removed from their cysts for identification. done either by dissection with
Needled or by digesting the cyst with a pepsin digest solution.
• The nature of proboscid armament is an important diagnostic feature for
Trypanosrhynch cestodes,
• Plerocercoides are usually inverted & must be everted by placing the
Plerocercoid in fresh water under coverslip pressure. it is not usually possible to
Evert the proboscides in frozen specimens.
Few types of attached Parasites on various fish host
Sacculina carcini on
Crab
Oriental sweetlips fish
(Plectorhinchus
vittatus) waits while
two boldly-patterned
cleaner wrasse
(Labroides dimidiatus)
pick parasites from its
skin.
Lernaea parasite on
A murray cod
Susceptible host fish species of parasite Anisakis spp. Larvae
• Susceptible host fish species of Anisakis spp. larvae as herring.; mackerel,.;
Atlantic salmon,.; cod,.; whiting,; blue whiting.; Atlantic salmon & many other
Marine teleosts and cephalopod species.
• Few reports show that the parasite can cause a localized inflammation of the lower
Gut and anal region of e.g. Salmon.
• Atlantic salmon infected with Anisakis spp. larvae & Red vent a good
indication.
Studies used parasitic tags for stock identification of
Small clupeoid species.
Parasites used Host species Study area
Anisakid nematode
larvae, cestode, Plerocercoids, Myxosporean
Atlantic herring
Clupea harengus harengus
Northwest
Atlantic
Anisakis sp. larvae Atlantic herring Northwest
Atlantic
Anisakis sp. larvae Atlantic herring Baltic Sea
Anisakis sp. larvae, cestode Plerocercoid
adult digeneans
Atlantic herring Baltic Sea
Digenean larvae, cestode plerocercoid Atlantic herring Northeast
Atlantic
Anisakis sp. larvae Atlantic herring Northwest
Atlantic
Anisakis sp. larvae Atlantic herring Baltic Sea
Anisakis sp. Larvae (Nematoda) Pacific herring British
Columbia
Studies used parasitic tags for stock identification of small
Clupeoid species
Gyrodactylidae Pacific herring White Sea Kulachkova (1977)
Digenean larvae,
Anisakid nematode
Pacific herring Northeast
Pacific
Arthur & Arai
(1980)
Anisakid larvae,
cestode
Plerocercoid, adult
digenean
Pacific herring California Moser & Hsieh
(1992)
Monogenea Sprat
Sprattus sprattus
North Sea Reimer (1978)
General parasite
Community
Sardine
Sardina pilchardus
Northeast
Atlantic
Shukhgalter (1998)
Parasite community Engraulis anchoita Argentina Timi (2003)
Studies used parasitic tags for stock identification of small Carrangids hosts
Helminth fauna Carrangids hosts as Black
Sea horse mackerel
Trachurus mediterraneus
ponticus
Black Sea Kovaleva (1965)
Anisakis sp.
Larvae
Atlantic horse mackerel
Trachurus trachurus
North & Northwest
Spain
Abaunza et al. (1995)
General parasite
community
Atlantic horse mackerel Northeast Atlantic and
Mediterranean
Sea
Campbell et al. (2002)
General parasite
Community
Horse mackerels Trachurus
spp.
Eastern Atlantic Gaevskaya & Kovaleva
(1980)
Anisakid nematode larvae,
Juvenile acanthocephalan,
parasitic isopod
Jack mackerel Trachurus
symmetricus murphyi
Chile George-Nascimento &
Arancibia (1992)
parasitic isopod Jack mackerel Pacific Ocean Avdeev (1992)
General parasite
Community
Chile, Peru George-Nascimento (2000)
Anisakis sp. Decapterus russelli Java Sea Burhanuddin & Djamali
Studies used parasitic tags for stock identification of small Carangids host species
Decapterus russelli
Black Sea
Horsemackerel
parasitic isopod
Studies using parasites as biological tags for stock identification
Parasites Host species of small
Carangid
Study area
Location
Reference
Anisakis sp. larvae Atlantic mackerel
Scomber scombrus
North &
Northwest Spain
Abaunza et al. (1995)
Cestode
Plerocercoids
Atlantic mackerel
Scomber scombrus
Northwest Spain
Northeast Atlantic
MacKenzie (1990)
General parasite
Community
Japanese mackerel
Scomber japonicus
Northwest Pacific Pozdnyakov &
Vasilenko (1994)
Parasitic copepods Pacific saury, Cololabis saira Pacific Ocean Sokolovsky (1969)
Anisakis sp. larvae
Cestode plerocercoid
Garfish Belone belone Baltic Sea Grabda (1981)
Adult cestode
Anisakid Larvae, protozoan
Capelin Mallotus villosus Barents Sea
Atlantic Canada
Kennedy (1979)
Arthur & Albert (1996)
Adult Cestode, Anisakid
Nematode, protozoan
Capelin Mallotus villosus Barents Sea
Atlantic Canada
Kennedy (1979)
Arthur & Albert (1996)
Myxosporean Blue whiting Celtic Sea and
adjacent waters
Karasev (1988)
parasitic tags Successfully used for management supporting Assessement studies
1). Red fish stocks in Western North Atlantic (parasitic copepod Sphyrion lumpi)
2). Cod Stocks in the Western N Atlantic (copepod Lernaeocera branchiasis)
3). Differentiation of North Sea Whiting Stocks (gall bladder in habiting
Myxosporidians, as Ceratomyxa arculata & Myxidium sphaericum)
4). Recruitment migration of North Sea herring (two Nematodes & a cestode)
5). Identification of the fishing zones of Sole (Myxobolus aeglefini)
Future prospects of parasitic biological tags in fisheries
• Desirable parasites to used to undertake studies lacking information about specificstock & conservation of particular life stages affected by various threats individualfish stock at their habitat still poor & best possible solution using parasitic tags toneed be ascertained.
• There may be a Greater scope in by utilizing parasites in multidisciplinaryAspects of fisheries management supporting studies, especially developingCountries young fisheries researchers as in India.
• Unknown feasible benefits of the parasitic tags in relation to fisheries may behave greater scope in efficient management of the fisheries and before itsutilization it must be known about each candidate species of parasites which willbe selected for conducting studies.
Conclusion:
• Relatively low cost so it can be effectively utilized for assessing the fish stock Throughout the
season of their availability.
• Less man power required compare to other tagging methods.
• As most of the research works suggested related to using different parasitic species and their
utilization as live natural (biological tags) many geographical location of aquatic systems as
fresh water, brackish water & sea water.
• Parasites have been proven for their wide feasible natural marks in host biological, population
and stock identification studies.