Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rngvg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-06T12:37:43.531Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Parasitization of a hydrothermal vent limpet (Lepetodrilidae, Vetigastropoda) by a highly modified copepod (Chitonophilidae, Cyclopoida)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2008

V. TUNNICLIFFE*
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, University of Victoria, PO Box 3020, Victoria, BCCanadaV8W 3N5 School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria, PO Box 3020, Victoria, BCCanadaV8W 3N5
J. M. ROSE
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, University of Victoria, PO Box 3020, Victoria, BCCanadaV8W 3N5
A. E. BATES
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, University of Victoria, PO Box 3020, Victoria, BCCanadaV8W 3N5
N. E. KELLY
Affiliation:
Department of Oceanography, Dalhousie University, 1355 Oxford Street, Halifax, NSCanadaB3H 4J1
*
*Corresponding author: Department of Biology, University of Victoria, PO Box 3020, Victoria, BCCanadaV8W 3N5. Tel: 1 250 721 7135. Fax: 1 250 721 7120. E-mail: verenat@uvic.ca
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The limpet Lepetodrilus fucensis McLean is very abundant at hydrothermal vents on the Juan de Fuca and Explorer Ridges in the northeast Pacific Ocean. This limpet is parasitized by an undescribed chitonophilid copepod throughout the limpet's range. The parasite copepodite enters the mantle cavity and attaches to the afferent branchial vein. The initial invasive stage is a vermiform endosome within the vein that develops an extensive rootlet system causing an enlargement of the afferent branchial vein. Subsequently, an ectosomal female body grows outside the vein to sizes up to 2 mm in width. Once a dwarf male attaches, egg clusters form and nauplii are released. In over 3000 limpets examined from 30 populations, prevalence averaged about 5% with localized infections in female limpets over 25%. After the establishment of limpet populations at new vents, copepod prevalence increased over the succeeding months to 3 years. Host effects were marked and included castration of both sexes and deterioration in gill condition which affected both food acquisition and the gill symbiont. There was a significantly greater parasite prevalence in larger females which likely modifies the reproductive and competitive success of local host populations.

Information

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Table 1. Locations of ventfields on the Juan de Fuca and Explorer Ridges from which limpet samples were examined(Within each field collections may derive from several vents. Samples were used to examine geographical spread (G), or parasite establishment in annual samples of newly created vents (E), or parasitization of limpets on the periphery of vent influence (P) and at senescent vents (S).)

Figure 1

Fig. 1. Cyclopoid chitonophilid copepod (putative new species) infecting the hydrothermal vent limpet Lepetodrilus fucensis McLean. (A) L. fucensis with shell and mantle removed. Branchial vein is infiltrated with copepod endosome at the top of the image. Copepod ectosome (arrow) has masses of yellow eggs attached overlying the limpet gill. (B) An early Stage 4 chitonophilid showing a bulbous, ovoid attachment point through the branchial vein to the branching endosome. A male (arrow) has attached and ova are maturing inside the female. Two images in different focal planes were merged leaving the faint semicircular artefact on the ectosome. (C) A Stage 4 chitonophilid removed from the limpet host to show the 2 large clusters of eggs. (D) A distended branchial vein with 2 Stage 1 vermiform copepods. (E) A Stage 1 endosome removed from vein showing 2 central extensions. (F) A Stage 2 endosome that has begun to branch. (G) A high-contrast image of female endosome with eggs removed to show an attached male (arrow) and 2 copepodite moults embedded in the female tissue. (H) One male found free in limpet mantle shows the lateral lobes that presumably attach in the female tissue; 2 additional males to illustrate the simplified body structure. (I) Head of a female copepodite removed from a Stage 1 endosome inside a branchial vein; the remainder of the body was not evident. (J) Chitonophilid nauplius removed from limpet mantle cavity. (K) Critical-point dried branchial vein of limpet cracked to show the cross-sectional structure of the endosome. When observed live, both the rootlets and the main stem display rapid wriggling movements.

Figure 2

Fig. 2. SEM micrograph showing a Stage 4 chitonophilid copepod female ectosome (cfe) attached to a distorted branchial vein (lbv) overlying the limpet gill (lg). The male (cm) is attached at the apex of the female ectosome and surrounded by bundles of eggs (ceb).

Figure 3

Fig. 3. (A) Size frequency histogram of chitonophilid ectosome width in Stages 3 and 4. Stage 3 ectosome widths are less variable than in Stage 4, which can exceed 2 mm. (B) Ectosome width (mm) of chitonophilid parasites in Stage 4 infection (n=81) versus shell length (mm) of the host Lepetodrilus fucensis. Spearman correlation is significant at P<0·01.

Figure 4

Table 2. Stages of parasitization by chitonophilid copepod within the limpet Lepetodrilis fucensis as defined in this study(From 3211 limpets, we extracted 198 parasites which is the sum of Stages 1 to 4; Stage 5 designates limpets with more than 1 parasite.)

Figure 5

Table 3. Prevalence of chitonophilid copepods in Lepetodrilus fucensis along the Juan de Fuca and Explorer Ridges(Prevalence of parasitization is the proportion of limpets sampled with 1 or more copepods at any infection stage. Relative prevalence takes into account the limpet sex ratio in samples that range from 40% to 50% male. *=Clam Bed field samples; the other Endeavour samples are different ventfields. ‘All’ represents all specimens examined including those in Table 4.)

Figure 6

Table 4. Prevalence of chitonophilid parasite in Lepetodrilus fucensis at vents formed on Axial Volcano after the January 1998 lava eruption((A) Year that we observed limpets recruiting at new vents varied; the lack of replicates in the early months is due to very low limpet abundance anywhere on the new lavas. Limpets were not seen at Cloud N6 vent until 30 months post-eruption. Bolded samples are paired with those in part B of the table. (B) These 3 samples are paired with samples in the upper part of the table (E02, E20 and E27) where limpets were collected within high fluid flow around tubeworms; the P series limpets were scattered on basalt about 50–100 cm distant from fluid flow.)

Figure 7

Table 5. Proportions of male and female host Lepetodrilus fucensis with parasitic chitonophilid copepods at each infection stage(e.g. 33% of parasitized males hosted Stage 1 parasites. In total, 167 limpets were parasitized. Mean gill and gonad health (±1 s.d.) decline with progressive stages of the infection; maximum ‘healthy’ score is 3.)

Figure 8

Fig. 4. (A) Prevalence of parasitization by chitonophilid copepods for each size interval of male and female host limpets. In the ‘11 mm male’ and the ‘12 mm female’ size categories, less than 25 limpets were available for examination. (B) Size distribution of parasitized limpets relative to the median size of the population from which they were collected. Limpets are larger (+1 to 4 mm), the same (0), or smaller (−1 to −4 mm) than the population median. For both sexes (females, n=124; males, n=45), there is a skew to larger sizes.

Figure 9

Fig. 5. Mean (+s.e.) gamete maturity of host male and female Lepetodrilus fucensis in unparasitized and parasitized states. ‘Early parasite’ includes Stages 1 to 3 while ‘late parasite’ includes Stages 4 and 5. Gametogenic maturity for males is the percentage of total gonad cross-sectional area occupied by spermatozoa, and for females, it is the percentage of mature oocytes. Numbers in parentheses indicate sample sizes. Significant differences between stages within a gender are indicated by different letters as identified by Tukey's HSD test (P<0·05).

Figure 10

Fig. 6. Micrographs of histological sections of host limpet Lepetodrilus fucensis with Stage 4 infection, stained with haematoxylin and eosin. (A) Transverse section of parasitized limpet showing copepod eggs (ce) and developing eggs (cde) above limpet gill (lg) along with copepod endosome (cend) in limpet blood vessel and part of the ectosome (cect); an emaciated limpet gonad membrane (lgm) lies below the digestive gland (ldg) and stomach (ls), and above the foot musculature (lfm). (B) Effect of stage 4 infection on ovary (lov) of limpet female and reduction in oocyte production (oo); trabeculae of ovary (tb). (C) Effect of stage 4 parasitic infection on testis (lts) of male limpet and reduction in spermatozoa (spz) production. (D) Section of the testis in an unparasitized male limpet illustrating abundant spermatozoa. (E) Section of the ovary of an unparasitized female limpet illustrating abundant vitellogenic oocytes (vo) and oogonia (oog).

Figure 11

Fig. 7. Oocyte size-frequency histograms (mean+s.e.) for female limpet Lepetodrilus fucensis in unparasitized (A) and parasitized condition; ‘early parasite’ (B) includes Stages 1 to 3, while ‘late parasite’ (C) includes Stages 4 and 5. N=number of females examined.