Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-6kn8j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T16:42:27.716Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Brittlestar host specificity and apparent host discrimination by the parasitic copepod Ophiopsyllus reductus*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

R. H. Emson  and
P. V. Mladenov
R. H. Emson
Affiliation:
Biology Department, King's College(KQC), Strand Campus, London WC2R 2LS
P. V. Mladenov
Affiliation:
Biology Department, Mount Allison University, Sackville, New Brunswick, Canada EOA 3C0
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Host specificity of a siphonostome copepod Ophiopsyllus reductus was confirmed by the results of an extensive survey of co-existing possible alternate host brittlestars. The parasite was found only on Ophiocomella ophiactoides. The ability to discriminate between potential hosts was tested experimentally. O. ophiactoides was always preferred and, in experiments with unrelated alternative hosts, the discrimination was absolute. When closely related species were the alternate host, discrimination was less complete. It is suggested that the discrimination is due to recognition of either tactile or chemical characteristics of the preferred host.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 94 , Issue 1 , February 1987 , pp. 7 - 15
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bocquet, C., Stock, J. H. & Louise, F. (1963). Copépodes parasites d'invertébrés des côtes de France. XV. Le problème systématique d'Astrocheres violaceus (Claus) et d'Astrocheres minutus (Claus). Proceedings of the Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Amsterdam 66, 37–53.Google Scholar
Boxshall, G. A. (1976). The host specificity of Lepeophtheirus pectoralis (Muller, 1776) (Copepoda: Caligidae). Journal of Fish Biology 8, 255–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carton, Y. (1986). Etude expérimentale de l'infestation d'Amphipolis squamata Delia chiaje (Ophiuride) par Cancerilla tubulata Dalyell (Copépode Cyclopoide). Cahiers de Biologie Marine 9, 269–84.Google Scholar
Emson, R. H., Mladenov, P. V. & Wilkie, I. C. (1985 a). Studies of the biology of the West-Indian copepod Ophiopsyllus reductus (Siphonostomatoida: Cancerillidae) parasitic upon the brittlestar Ophiocomella ophiactoides. Journal of Natural History 19, 151–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emson, R. H., Mladenov, P. V. & Wilkie, I. C. (1985 b). Patterns of reproduction in small Jamaican brittlestars: fission and brooding predominate. In The Ecology of Coral Reefs, vol. 3, (ed. Reaka, M. L.), pp. 87–100. N.O.A.A. Undersea Research Program, Rockville, Maryland.Google Scholar
Mladenov, P. V., Emson, R. H., Colpitts, L. V. & Wilkie, I. C. (1983). Asexual reproduction in the West Indian brittlestar Ophiocomella ophiactoides (H. L. Clark) Echinodermata: Ophiuroidea. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 72, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parslow, E. R. & Clark, A. M. (1963). Ophiuroidea of the Lesser Antilles. Studies on the Fauna of Curaçao and other Caribbean Islands 15, 24–50.Google Scholar
Siegel, S. (1956). Non Parametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Stock, J. H., Humes, A. G. & Gooding, R. U. (1963). Copepoda associated with West Indian invertebrates, 2, Cancerillidae, Micropontidae (Siphonostoma). Studies on the Fauna of Curaçao and other Caribbean Islands 66, 1–23.Google Scholar