Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rngvg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-05T23:59:52.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Parasites in a man-made landscape: contrasting patterns of trematode flow in a fishpond area in Central Europe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2011

M. SOLDÁNOVÁ
Affiliation:
Institute of Parasitology, Biology Centre of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Branišovská 31, 370 05 České Budějovice, Czech Republic
A. FALTÝNKOVÁ
Affiliation:
Institute of Parasitology, Biology Centre of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Branišovská 31, 370 05 České Budějovice, Czech Republic
T. SCHOLZ
Affiliation:
Institute of Parasitology, Biology Centre of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Branišovská 31, 370 05 České Budějovice, Czech Republic
A. KOSTADINOVA*
Affiliation:
Institute of Parasitology, Biology Centre of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Branišovská 31, 370 05 České Budějovice, Czech Republic Institute of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Research, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 2 Gagarin Street, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria
*
*Corresponding author: Institute of Parasitology, Biology Centre of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Branišovská 31, 370 05 České Budějovice, Czech Republic. Tel: +420 38 5310351. Fax: +420 38 5310388. E-mail: Aneta.Kostadinova@uv.es; kostadinova@paru.cas.cz
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

We have explored a large body of novel data focusing on small-scale temporal and spatial patterns in the composition and structure of larval trematode communities in Lymnaea stagnalis (L.) from a typical Central European agricultural landscape. The 5 eutrophic fishponds studied provide excellent environments for the development of species-rich and abundant trematode communities. Nine prevalent species were consistently present in component communities, but had differential contribution to the parasite flow in the 5 ponds resulting in significant contrasting patterns of community similarity and the prevalence of the 3 major transmission guilds driving this similarity. Component communities split into 2 groups: (i) those from the large pond dominated by anatid and larid generalists with active miracidial transmission; and (ii) those from the smaller ponds dominated by 2 plagiorchioideans infecting snails via egg ingestion. We put forward 3 hypotheses for the remarkable differences in larval trematode flow in the similar and closely located eutrophic ponds: (i) species-specific differences in parasite colonization potential displayed by an ‘active-passive’ dichotomy in miracidial transmission strategies of the species; (ii) top-down effects of pond context on transmission pathways of the trematodes; and (iii) competition as an important mechanism in eutrophic environments with a bottom-up effect on component community structure.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Map of the study area in the Czech Republic showing all (outlined) and study ponds (filled). Key to ponds: V, pond Vlkovský; HS, pond Hluboký Sax; HH, pond Hluboký u Hamru; VD, pond Velký Dvorecký; Z, pond Zavadil.

Figure 1

Table 1. Summary data for the ponds studied, snail samples and overall rates of larval trematode infections

(Key to ponds: V, pond Vlkovský; HS, pond Hluboký Sax; HH, pond Hluboký u Hamru; VD, pond Velký Dvorecký; Z, pond Zavadil.)
Figure 2

Table 2. Trematodes recorded in Lymnaea stagnalis in the ponds studied, their second intermediate and definitive host groups and transmission pathway number (as indicated in Fig. 4)

(Data on definitive bird and amphibian hosts are based on surveys from the Czech and Slovak Republics only: Sitko et al. (2006) (birds); Vojtková (1974 a, b) (amphibians); Rudolfová et al. (2007) (bird hosts for T. szidati as confirmed by a sequencing study). Mammalian and reptilian host numbers are from Sharpilo and Iskova (1989); no data are currently available for A. burti but we assume this species has a life cycle similar to that of the closely related A. minor and also infects multiple species of waterfowl. See Fig. 4 for a graphical illustration of transmission pathways.)
Figure 3

Fig. 2. Comparison of the richness of local species pools at the study ponds estimated from component community richness data (UGE curves, 999 randomizations, samples entered in random order). Key to symbols: pond V (filled diamonds); pond HS (open squares); pond HH (open circles); pond VD (open triangles); pond Z (open diamonds).

Figure 4

Fig. 3. Occurrence-prevalence patterns of the trematodes ranked by their overall occurrence in larval trematode communities in Lymnaea stagnalis in the study area. The breakdown by area for each species indicates the proportion of communities where a species was core (filled area), secondary (checkerboard area) and satellite (open area). Abbreviations as in Table 2.

Figure 5

Table 3. Summary of seasonal data (range (mean)) for parasite community richness, overall prevalence (P%) of larval trematode infections and the prevalence (species name abbreviation (%)) of the 9 most frequent and abundant trematodes in Lymnaea stagnalis in the studied fishponds

(Abbreviations as in Tables 1 and 2.)
Figure 6

Fig. 4. Diagrammatic representation of the trematode transmission pathways (numbered), with respect to the definitive (top level) and second intermediate (middle level) host groups, of the species parasitizing Lymnaea stagnalis in the study ponds (bottom level). Thickness of the arrows to second intermediate host groups is proportional to the frequency of attaining core and secondary status in communities at each pond by the trematodes utilizing a given pathway. Dotted arrows: large pond (V); filled arrows: medium-sized (HS and HH) and small ponds (Z and VD).

Figure 7

Table 4. Temporal sequence of prevalence of the 9 common trematode species in larval trematode communities in Lymnaea stagnalis

(C and S indicate species that attained core and secondary status, respectively, in at least one component community within a season. Satellite status is indicated by a “+”. The period of rehabilitation at pond HH when sampling was interrupted is indicated by na. Abbreviations as in Tables 1 and 2.)
Figure 8

Fig. 5. (A) Two-dimensional MDS configuration plot of the 83 trematode component communities based on the similarity in community structure (Bray-Curtis index). (B) The same MDS plot but with the prevalence of the guild of anatid generalists superimposed. (C) The same MDS plot but with the prevalence of the larid generalist Diplostomum pseudospathaceum superimposed. (D) The same MDS plot but with the prevalence of the plagiorchioidean guild superimposed. The size of the circles is directly proportional to the prevalence of the respective guild in each component community. Key to symbols: pond V (filled diamonds); pond HS (open squares); pond HH (open circles); pond VD (open triangles); pond Z (open diamonds).

Figure 9

Fig. 6. ANCOVA interaction plots showing aggregate differences (least squares means) in trematode prevalence (arcsin square-root-transformed) among seasons and between ponds. (A) Overall prevalence. (B) Prevalence of the guild of anatid generalists. (C) Prevalence of the larid generalist Diplostomum pseudospathaceum. (D) Prevalence of the plagiorchioidean guild. Vertical bars denote 0·95 confidence intervals. Key to symbols: pond V (filled diamonds); pond HS (open squares); pond HH (open circles); pond VD (open triangles); pond Z (open diamonds).

Figure 10

Table 5. ANCOVA statistics for the variation in trematode component community richness, overall prevalence and the prevalence of infection of the populations of Lymnaea stagnalis with the 3 major transmission guilds as a function of season and pond of origin and their interactions

(Differences between the 2 analyses are indicated in bold.)