3.9 Article

Ecology of the parasitic endohelminth community of Pseudoplatystoma fasciatum (Linnaeus, 1776) (Siluriformes: Pimelodidae) from the Aquidauana River, Pantanal, State of Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil

Journal

BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF BIOLOGY
Volume 69, Issue 1, Pages 93-99

Publisher

INT INST ECOLOGY
DOI: 10.1590/S1519-69842009000100011

Keywords

ecology; helminths; fish; Pantanal; Pseudoplatystoma fasciatum

Categories

Funding

  1. CAPES

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigated the structure and diversity of the endohelminth community and its interactions with Pseudoplatystoma fasciatum, caught in the Aquidauana River, in the State of Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil. Ten helminth species were represented in 1,228 specimens of parasites found in the intestine and mesentery of 33 specimens of P. fasciatum. Cestodes were observed in the intestine, while nematodes Cucullanus sp. in the mesentery. Contracaecum sp. Type 1, Spatulifer rugosa and Choanoscolex abscisus showed the highest mean intensity and mean abundance and Nomimoscolex sudobin showed the highest prevalence. Simpson's index indicated dominance in the endohelminth infracommunities (C = 1.0792) and Choanoscolex abscisus was considered the central species. A clumped pattern of dispersion according to Green's index was related. 69.69% of hosts analyzed had between 2 and 5 species of endohelminths. Mean diversity was H = 0.5517 (SD = 0.4209). Two pairs of species showed significant positive association and four pairs presented significant positive correlation among abundance data. Significant negative correlations between total length and prevalence and abundance of Peltydocotyle rugosa and Nomimoscolex sudobim were found. However, no significant correlation was observed between condition factor and abundance, as well as total length and diversity. There was significant prevalence of Harriscolex kaparari in male hosts.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available