About this Journal Submit a Manuscript Table of Contents
Research Letters in Ecology
Volume 2008 (2008), Article ID 107576, 4 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2008/107576
Research Letter

Is Host Ectoparasite Load Related to Echeneid Fish Presence?

1Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas, IIM-CSIC, Eduardo Cabello 6, 36208 Vigo, Spain
2Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos (CIBIO), Campus Agrário de Vairão, Rua Padre Armando Quintas, 4485 Vairão, Portugal
3Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, The Laboratory, Citadel Hill, Plymouth, PL1 2PB, UK
4Foundation for the Protection of Marine Megafauna Tofo Beach, Mozambique
5School of Biomedical Sciences, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia
6Museu de Zoologia, IB, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, 13083-970 Campinas, SP, Brazil
7Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Raemistrasse 101, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland

Received 15 September 2008; Accepted 4 December 2008

Academic Editor: Mark Gibbons

Copyright © 2008 Gonzalo R. Mucientes et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

This study used field data of echeneid and ectoparasite associations with free-swimming whale sharks (Rhincodon typus) and captured mako sharks (Isurus oxyrinchus) to test whether (1) echeneid presence was positively correlated with ectoparasite presence; and (2) the number of ectoparasites was negatively correlated with the number of echeneid fish. Data from whale and mako sharks do not support the first hypothesis whereas data from mako sharks yields support for the second hypothesis. The results indicate that echeneids do regulate the number of ectoparasites on at least some host species, but these benefits may be contingent on the echeneid species.

1. Introduction

Remora or diskfish species of the family Echeneidae can be found on a wide variety of hosts including teleost fishes, marine mammals, turtles, sharks, and even conspecifics [1, 2]. This relationship is widely known, but the costs and benefits of this interaction for the echeneids and their hosts remain poorly understood [1, 35]. The most-cited possible benefit for the host is cleaning through the removal of parasites and diseased or injured tissue [57], but little quantitative data is available to support this hypothesis. Echeneids are reported to feed—at least to some extent—on ectoparasites, but the relative importance of parasites as a food source varies with the echeneid species involved [2, 6].

This study presents data on echeneid and ectoparasite presence from two shark host species. We use these data to address two working hypotheses: (1) if certain echeneid species actively feed on ectoparasites found on the host’s skin, then shark individuals with ectoparasites would host echeneids with a greater frequency than individuals with no detectable parasites on their skin; and (2) the number of ectoparasites on sharks would be negatively correlated to the number of echeneids present.

2. Materials and Methods

Echeneid and ectoparasite presence was recorded for two shark host species: the whale shark Rhincodon typus, and the shortfin mako, Isurus oxyrinchus. Both species are known to host different echeneid species [2]. The first hypothesis was tested using data from both hosts, whereas the second hypothesis was tested using data from mako sharks only.

Digital photographs of free-swimming whale sharks were taken opportunistically between October 2005 and January 2007 off the coast of Tofo Beach, Southern Mozambique. Each photograph of sufficiently high quality was visually searched for echeneids. For sharks that we were able to examine comprehensively (head, caudal area, fins, dorsal, as well as lateral and ventral surfaces), each photograph was additionally searched for ectoparasites larger than about 1 cm length or width and their position on the shark’s body was recorded.

Mako sharks were captured by a Spanish commercial surface longline fishing vessel targeting swordfish, Xiphias gladius, in the South Pacific between December 2004 and March 2005. Hooked sharks were hoisted onto the deck, at which time echeneids would usually detach from the host and could be counted. Echeneids were photographed for later analysis and immediately returned to sea after detachment from the sharks. The external surfaces of the sharks were then visually examined for the presence of ectoparasites and the number and position of parasites were recorded for each shark.

The echeneid species attached to either host were identified from the best-quality photographs. These were enlarged, analysed for body proportions and shapes, scrutinised for diagnostic features, and checked against digital or digitalised photographs and drawings of all presently recognized echeneid species [8]. To determine parasite distribution on the whale and mako sharks, the host’s body was divided into “microhabitats.” Analyzed data are reported as means  ±  S.D.

3. Results

3.1. Whale Sharks

A total of 3606 photographs were taken during 309 whale shark encounters. Sharks had detectable associated echeneids in 47 cases. Two echeneid species were positively identified: Echeneis naucrates was present in 21 and Remora brachyptera in 5 cases. The remaining echeneids could not be reliably identified to species level based on the photographs. The number of echeneids on a single shark was estimated to be between 1 and about 35 individuals (free-swimming E. naucrates; Figure 1(a)). Whale sharks could be examined comprehensively in 54 cases (17.5%). Ectoparasites on these whale sharks were identified as representatives of the copepod family Pandaridae similar to those described in [9]. A percentage of 30.6% of whale sharks with detectable parasites also had associated echeneids (Figure 1(b)). Ectoparasites were most frequently found on the head (Figure 1(c)). Where both organisms were observed on the same whale shark host ( 𝑛 = 1 5 ), echeneids could be found on several body microhabitats, including free-swimming (=  microhabitat L) close to the shark’s body, but mostly (66.7%) on the head where also parasites were located (Figure 1(c)).

fig1
Figure 1: Whale sharks photographed off Tofo Beach, Mozambique, with (a) a group of free-swimming Echeneis naucrates (microhabitat L); (b) frequencies of presence of ectoparasites and echeneids on 54 comprehensively sampled whale sharks (E  =  echeneids; P  =  parasites); (c) frequency of ectoparasite presence per microhabitat observed on whale sharks with (white bars) and without (black bars) echeneids.
3.2. Shortfin Makos

A total of 224 shortfin makos were examined, of which 68 had a total number of 128 echeneids attached ( 1 . 9 ± 1 . 3 ). All echeneid individuals were positively identified as Remora osteochir and ectoparasites were identified as Pandaridae and Caligidae (Figures 2(a), 2(b)). The recorded number of visible ectoparasites on 175 sharks was 5036 ( 2 8 . 1 ± 3 3 . 5 ). Of these, average parasite load on sharks with echeneids attached (22.3%; Figure 2(c)) was about a half compared to mako sharks without echeneids attached ( 1 7 . 5 ± 3 4 . 5 versus 32  ±  35.8). Ectoparasites were found on all microhabitats (except free-swimming) with most sharks having parasites attached on C, D, and G, respectively, when no echeneids were present (Figure 2(d)). Individual sharks had parasites attached to an average number of 3.7 (±2.1) microhabitats. When both organisms were present on the shark, most hosts had ectoparasites attached to microhabitats D, G, and H (Figure 2(d)). In this case, individual sharks had parasites attached to an average number of 2.2 (S.D.  =  1.3) microhabitats. The number of ectoparasites on mako sharks decreased with an increasing number of attached echeneids ( 𝑃 < . 0 5 , Figure 3).

fig2
Figure 2: (a) A live Remora osteochir from a mako shark; (b) ectoparasites (Pandaridae) attached to microhabitat C close to the pelvic fins of a male mako shark; (c) frequencies of presence of ectoparasites and echeneids on mako sharks (E  =  echeneids; P  =  parasites); (d) frequency of ectoparasite presence per microhabitat observed on mako sharks with (white bars) and without (black bars) R. osteochir attached.
107576.fig.003
Figure 3: Average number (+ S.D.) of ectoparasites on mako sharks with between 0 and 5 R. osteochir attached to the same individual. Only two individuals with  >5 echeneids attached to their bodies were captured. E = echeneids; P = parasites.

4. Discussion

Our data from whale and mako sharks do not lend conclusive support to the first hypothesis (Figures 1(b), 2(c)) which is based on the assumptions that parasites are the primary driver of echeneid host selection and/or that echeneids are able to assess host parasite loads. However, it is possible that echeneids choose hosts opportunistically and feed on ectoparasites nonselectively. With no data to test the two above-mentioned assumptions but data from mako sharks that support the second hypothesis (Figure 3), our results indicate that echeneids do regulate ectoparasite numbers—at least to some extent and probably dependent on the echeneid and ectoparasite species involved (see below)—and thereby reduce the number of the latter on the host’s body.

Ectoparasites were most commonly observed in a single microhabitat on whale sharks and in multiple microhabitats on mako sharks. Copepods are known to prefer specific locations on the bodies of their elasmobranch hosts [10], which has been hypothesised to decrease the exposure to adverse abiotic or biotic factors including predation by fishes [11]. However, in whale sharks, echeneids were also found most likely on the head when ectoparasites were present at the same time, which indicates that this particular microhabitat offered no protection from potential echeneid predation.

Both Xiphias gladius and Isurus oxyrinchus are known hosts for Remora osteochir although the latter association has been documented only once in the literature [2]. O’Toole [2] regards this echeneid species to be a pelagic obligate restricted to a small group of hosts, mostly billfishes. Diet data indicate that R. osteochir regularly feeds on different species of parasitic copepods [6, 12]. For whale sharks in this study, both species of echeneids reported were not previously listed to be associated with this particular host species [2]. About one third of the whale sharks that were infected with pandarid copepods also had associated echeneids. This could be related to the prevalence of E. naucrates, for which parasites are not an important food ([2, 6, 13] but see [4, 7]). Additionally, most individuals were free-swimming under the ventral surfaces of whale sharks while observed, which could indicate that these echeneids were not actively feeding at the time of our observations although there is a possibility that they were ram-feeding on plankton. For R. brachyptera, parasites are generally considered a moderately important food item [2, 10, 14].

A number of methodological limitations are evident in our study. For example, we were only able to sample a relatively small number of free-ranging whale sharks conclusively (covering the entire body surface) and only were able to detect large ectoparasites on photographs. We might also have missed smaller echeneid species and/or individuals that would feed on parasites in the mouth or gill chambers of whale sharks. These constraints likely result in underestimating the actual ectoparasite and echeneid load. Furthermore, we were not able to quantify the degree of echeneid detachment and/or microhabitat changes (if any actually occur) for hooked mako sharks while still in the sea. Future studies looking at the degree of importance of ectoparasites to different echeneid species should also look at their gut contents. We nevertheless are confident that our study adds a novel approach to the understanding of the little known and elusive host-echeneid association and underpins the need for observational data from free-ranging animals that can be combined with information collected on commercial fishing vessels.

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Instituto Español de Oceanografía (Coruña) and Andrés Paz and crew of the vessel “Maicoa Dos” for assistance and collaboration with mako shark fieldwork. Andrea Marshall and Tofo Scuba assisted with whale shark fieldwork. J. M. Brunnschweiler is supported by the Save Our Seas Foundation, the Shark Foundation Switzerland, Project AWARE (UK) and he acknowledges the Swiss National Science Foundation Grant no. 11 9305/1 for partial funding during the preparation phase of this manuscript. I. Sazima thanks the CNPq for essential financial support. N. Queiroz was funded by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) Grant SFRH/BD/21354/2005. S. J. Pierce is supported by Casa Barry Lodge, Project AWARE (UK), PADI Foundation, and the Save Our Seas Foundation. Fran Saborido and Juan Santos are gratefully acknowledged for technical assistance and advice. The valuable comments from two anonymous referees that substantially improved this manuscript are greatly appreciated.

References

  1. J. M. Brunnschweiler and I. Sazima, “A new and unexpected host for the sharksucker (Echeneis naucrates) with a brief review of the echeneid—host interaction,” JMBA2 Biodiversity Records, 2006, http://www.mba.ac.uk/jmba/pdf/5434.pdf.
  2. B. O'Toole, “Phylogeny of the species of the superfamily Echeneoidea (Perciformes: Carangoidei: Echeneidae, Rachycentridae, and Coryphaenidae), with an interpretation of echeneid hitchhiking behaviour,” Canadian Journal of Zoology, vol. 80, no. 4, pp. 596–623, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  3. J. M. Brunnschweiler, “Sharksucker—shark interaction in two carcharhinid species,” Marine Ecology, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 89–94, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  4. I. Sazima and A. Grossman, “Turtle riders: remoras on marine turtles in Southwest Atlantic,” Neotropical Ichthyology, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 123–126, 2006. View at Google Scholar
  5. J. M. Silva Jr. and I. Sazima, “Whalesuckers on spinner dolphins: an underwater view,” JMBA2 Biodiversity Records, 2006, http://www.mba.ac.uk/jmba/pdf/5201.pdf.
  6. R. F. Cressey and E. A. Lachner, “The parasitic copepod diet and life history of diskfishes (Echeneidae),” Copeia, vol. 2, pp. 310–318, 1970. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  7. I. Sazima, R. L. Moura, and M. C. M. Rodrigues, “A juvenile sharksucker, Echeneis naucrates (Echeneidae), acting as a station-based cleaner fish,” Cybium, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 377–380, 1999. View at Google Scholar
  8. I. Sazima, “Species records, mistaken identifications, and their further use: the case of the diskfish Echeneis naucrates on a spinner dolphin,” Neotropical Ichthyology, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 457–460, 2006. View at Google Scholar
  9. B. M. Norman, D. R. Newbound, and B. Knott, “A new species of Pandaridae (Copepoda), from the whale shark Rhincodon typus (Smith),” Journal of Natural History, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 355–366, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  10. J. N. Caira and C. J. Healy, “Elasmobranchs as hosts of metazoan parasites,” in Biology of Sharks and their Relatives, J. C. Carrier, J. A. Musick, and M. R. Heithaus, Eds., pp. 523–551, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla, USA, 2004. View at Google Scholar
  11. K. Buchmann and T. Lindenstrøm, “Interactions between monogenean parasites and their fish hosts,” International Journal for Parasitology, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 309–319, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  12. T. Vaske Jr., “Alimentação de rêmora Remora osteochir (Cuvier, 1929), e peixe-piloto Naucrates ductor (Linnaeus, 1758), no sul do Brasil,” Revista Brasileira de Biologia, vol. 55, pp. 315–321, 1995. View at Google Scholar
  13. L. Szidat and A. Nani, “Las remoras del Atlantico austral con un estudio de su nutricion natural y de sus parasitos,” Revista del Instituto Nacional de Investigacion de las Ciencias Naturales (Ciencias Zoologicas), vol. 2, pp. 385–417, 1951. View at Google Scholar
  14. D. W. Strasburg, “Notes on the diet and correlating structures of some central Pacific echeneid fishes,” Copeia, vol. 3, pp. 244–248, 1959. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar