Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-kv2lp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-06T05:02:36.697Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

An evaluation of three sampling methods to monitor a digenetic trematode Centrocestus formosanus in a spring-fed ecosystem

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2013

VALENTIN CANTU*
Affiliation:
San Marcos Aquatic Resource Center, 500 East McCarty Lane, San Marcos, TX 78666, USA
THOMAS M. BRANDT
Affiliation:
San Marcos Aquatic Resource Center, 500 East McCarty Lane, San Marcos, TX 78666, USA
THOMAS L. ARSUFFI
Affiliation:
Llano River Field Station, Texas Tech University, P.O. Box 186, Junction, TX 76849, USA
*
*Corresponding author: San Marcos Aquatic Resource Center, 500 East McCarty Lane, San Marcos, TX 78666, USA. Tel: 512-353-0011 ext. 225. Fax: 512-353-0856. E-mail: valentin_cantu@fws.gov
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Centrocestus formosanus is a digenetic trematode from Asia that parasitizes multiple hosts and is a concern in the Comal River, Texas, USA, because of its negative effects on the endangered fountain darter Etheostoma fonticola. To determine a practical sampling method to monitor C. formosanus in the Comal River, we evaluated three sampling methods using wild-caught fish, caged fish reared in the laboratory, and cercariometry. Cercariometry detected significant spatial and temporal patterns of cercarial density in river water that were similar with metacercarial intensity in caged fish, but inconsistent with metacercarial intensity in wild-caught fish. Our results also showed a positive correlation between cercarial density in river water and metacercarial intensity in caged fish. Conversely, the relationship was not significant between cercarial density and metacercarial intensity in wild-caught fish. Because cercariometry predicted similar trends with the caged fountain darter sampling method, cercariometry was useful in predicting C. formosanus gill infections, infection rate, and longevity in infected fountain darters. Although trends from cercariometry and caged fish sampling methods were similar, we recommend cercariometry because it was less expensive to use given the amount of sampling effort required and provides trends that can be used to make pro-active management decisions in C. formosanus-infested aquatic ecosystems.

Information

Type
Parasitology Express
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Study sites where Centrocestus formosanus were collected from river water and in caged and wild-caught fountain darters in the Comal River, Comal County, TX. Spring Run 1 (SPR 1) and Spring Run 3 (SPR 3) sites converge into the Confluence (CF) site and flow into Landa Lake. Houston Street (HS), Spring Island (SI), and Bird Island (BI) sites are in Landa Lake. Elizabeth Street (ES) site is about midstream of the Comal River, while Garden Street (GS) site is the furthest downstream reach of the Comal River.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Average diel cercarial densities of Centrocestus formosanus and Haplorchis pumilio collected from the water column in the Comal River, Comal County, TX.

Figure 2

Table 1. Mean seasonal Centrocestus formosanus cercarial densities from filtered river water, caged fountain darters, and wild-caught fountain darters at eight sites in the Comal River, Comal County, Texas

Figure 3

Fig. 3. The relationships between (A) cercarial density from cercariometry and intensity from caged fish sampling and (B) cercarial density from cercariometry and intensity from wild-caught fish sampling. The equations are: (A) y = 1·16x – 0·04, r2 = 0·77, P < 0·01 and (B) y = 0·69x +2·55, r2 = 0·11, P > 0·05.