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

Identification of parasites for tagging purpose

Scanning electron

Microscopy (SEM)

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.

Anisakis simplex

Anisakis simplex (Nematoda)

Eupausiid

Teleostfish

Cetaceans

Cetaceans

Eupausiid

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

Parasitic distribution on selected fish host within this Large Marine Ecosystems (LME) of the World

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.

Parasitic tag on infected fish host

cymothoa exigua insect

Parasite eats fish tongue

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)

Studies used parasitic tags for fish stock identification

Anisakis sp. larvae

Studies using parasites as biological tags for stock Identification

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.

Dedicating the dear

Parents (Late)

Bhukya Balu &

Bhukya Rangi