Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T11:16:18.903Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Do eel parasites reflect the local crustacean community? A case study from the Rhine river system

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2007

Frankie Thielen*
Affiliation:
Zoologisches Institut – Ökologie/Parasitologie, Geb. 07.01, Universität Karlsruhe, Kornblumenstr. 13, 76128 Karlsruhe, Germany:
Marcel Münderle
Affiliation:
Zoologisches Institut – Ökologie/Parasitologie, Geb. 07.01, Universität Karlsruhe, Kornblumenstr. 13, 76128 Karlsruhe, Germany:
Horst Taraschewski
Affiliation:
Zoologisches Institut – Ökologie/Parasitologie, Geb. 07.01, Universität Karlsruhe, Kornblumenstr. 13, 76128 Karlsruhe, Germany:
Bernd Sures
Affiliation:
Angewandte Zoologie/Hydrobiologie, Universität Duisburg-Essen, Universitätsstr. 5, 45141 Essen, Germany
*
*Fax: +352 26958080 E-mail: frankie.thielen@uni-due.de
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In 2003, the parasite fauna of 197 European eels Anguilla anguilla, captured at three different locations (Laufenburg, Karlsruhe and Beneeden Leeuwen) in the River Rhine, was analysed. The eels harboured a total of 18 species, among them the protozoa (Myxidium giardi, Myxobolus kotlani and Trypanosoma granulosum), acanthocephalans (Acanthocephalus anguillae, Acanthocephalus lucii, Echinorhynchus truttae, Pomphorhynchus laevis), nematodes (Paraquimperia tenerrima, Pseudocapillaria tomentosa, Camallanus lacustris, Raphidascaris acus, Spinitectus inermis and Anguillicola crassus), cestodes (Bothriocephalus claviceps and Proteocephalus macrocephalus) and monogeneans (Pseudodactylogyrus sp.). The parasite fauna at the different locations is discussed with respect to the crustacean fauna present at these locations. The investigation shows that changes in the composition of the crustacean fauna, due to the anthropogenic breakdown of a biogeographic barrier, are reflected in the composition of the intestinal eel parasite fauna.

Information

Type
ICOPAXI Papers
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007
Figure 0

Fig. 1 Drainage system of the River Rhine with the three sampling sites (black dots).

Figure 1

Table 1 Morphometric eel data and dates of sampling in 2003.

Figure 2

Table 2 Abundance of different crustacean species at the Laufenburg sampling site from 1995 to 2003. Abundance classes according to Alf et al. (1992), with 1= single finding to 7= mass occurrence.

Figure 3

Table 3 Abundance of different crustacean species at the Karlsruhe sampling site from 1995 to 2003. Abundance classes according to Alf et al. (1992), with 1= single finding to 7= mass occurrence.

Figure 4

Table 4 Presence of different crustacean species in 2000 at the three sampling sites (after IKSR, 2002b).

Figure 5

Table 5 Prevalence [P (%)], mean intensity (MI) ± standard deviation (SD), mean abundance (MA) ± SD of the parasites (except acanthocephalans) found on and in the eels at the three sampling sites.

Figure 6

Table 6 Prevalence [P (%)], mean intensity (MI) ± standard deviation (SD), mean abundance (MA) ± SD of the acanthocephalans found in the eels at the three sampling sites.