Nested patterns in parasite component communities of a marine fish along its latitudinal range on the Pacific coast of South America

Abstract

A major goal of community ecology is to identify and explain non-random patterns of species composition. To date, the search for nested patterns in parasite component communities of the same fish host species has not been attempted, despite the fact that this higher hierarchical level is more relevant to nestedness analyses. The aims of this study are first, to determine the structure of component communities -considering ectoparasites and endoparasites separately -of a marine fish (Sebastes capensis) with an extended geographical distribution along the southeastern Pacific and, second, to explain these patterns by taking into account the extrinsic factors associated with the distribution of this host fish. From April to September 2003 and from April to August 2004, 537 fish were captured from different latitudes along the southeastern Pacific. The component communities of both ectoparasites and endoparasites of this fish host showed significant nested subset patterns. However, the type of nestedness pattern differed between ectoparasites and endoparasites. Ectoparasite component communities of S. capensis show higher species richness between latitude 30xS and 40xS, whereas endoparasite component communities show higher species richness between 40xS and 52xS. A nested pattern in ectoparasite component communities of S. capensis result from the gradual loss of some ectoparasites species southward and northward of the central part of their latitudinal distribution, which can be explained by the interaction of S. capensis with other host fish species from the central Chilean coast. Nestedness in endoparasite component communities of S. capensis is produced by the gains and losses of species toward the south of their latitudinal distribution, caused by changes in their prey-items (intermediate hosts) along their latitudinal distributional range.

Patterns of interactions of a large fish–parasite network in a tropical floodplain

“…It has been shown elsewhere that nestedness decreases resilience and persistence of food webs, whereas modularity has an opposite effect (Thébault & Fontaine 2010; Stouffer & Bascompte 2011). Several studies with host‐parasite networks have detected a nested pattern (González & Poulin 2005; Vázquez et al. 2005, 2007; Graham et al.…”

Possible influence of the ENSO phenomenon on the pathoecology of diphyllobothriasis and anisakiasis in ancient Chinchorro populations

“…The parasite has also been reported in Antofagasta (González & Poulin 2005) from fish caught between [2003][2004]. The researchers pointed out that in the natural coastal environment the parasite diversity in fish depended on the number of crustaceans that were pres-ent as intermediate hosts and the ecology of the region.…”

“…In their natural life cycles, the patterns of parasite distribution along the Pacific coast of Chile are defined by changes in their prey-items, which are intermediate hosts along their distributional latitudinal range and through El Niño events (González & Poulin 2005). It is noteworthy that these cold and warmer water and biota oscillations have fascinating evolutionary implications.…”

“…Figs 1 and 2 illustrate that Anisakis displays a preference for colder waters, the frequencies are thus higher in southern latitudes (39-53°), reaching a parasite prevalence of 86.5% (González & Poulin 2005). Using these previously generated data (parasite frequency versus latitude) we calculated a correlation coefficient (Pearson) of 0.86.…”

Parasite communities indicate effects of cross-shelf distributions, but not mesoscale oceanographic features on northern California Current mid-trophic food web

“…Parasites have successfully been used as biological markers of marine fishes because environmental factors can restrict the distribution of 1 or more stages of a life cycle, either directly on a free-living stage or through the distribution of a required host. To date, spatial distributions of marine parasites have been predominantly attributed to large-scale effects, such as latitudinal gradients (Blaylock et al 1998, González & Poulin 2005, González et al 2006. The abiotic drivers of marine parasite distributions are primarily temperature and salinity, acting both directly on free-living stages of marine parasites and on the composition of the invertebrate fauna and ichthyofauna that serve as hosts (see reviews by Polyanski 1961, Marcogliese 2005.…”