4.4 Article

Morphometric and genetic evidence for cryptic diversity in Gyrodactylus (Monogenea) infecting non-native European populations of Ameiurus nebulosus and A. melas

期刊

PARASITOLOGY
卷 147, 期 14, 页码 1700-1711

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0031182020001195

关键词

Bullhead catfish; Ictaluridae; gyrodactylids; non-native host; North-America

资金

  1. ROZE, the research programme Life Diversity and Ecosystem Health [AV21]
  2. project PROFISH - European Regional Development Fund in the operational programme VVV MSMT [CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16_019/0000869]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Gyrodactylid parasites were observed on non-native populations of North-American freshwater catfishes, Ameiurus nebulosus and Ameiurus melas (Siluriformes: Ictaluridae), at several sites in the Elbe River basin, Czech Republic, Europe. Using a combination of morphological and genetic analyses, the parasites infecting A. nebulosus were determined to be Gyrodactylus nebulosus, a North American parasite co-introduced to Europe along with its Ameiurus fish hosts. Subtle morphometrical differences, as well as seasonal variations, were observed among parasites collected from A. nebulosus and A. melas. The host-related variation was further supported through genetic analysis of the partial 18S rDNA, ITS1-5.8S-ITS2 and COI, showing 0.2, 3.0 and 4.8% divergence, respectively. Consistent genetic differences indicated there were two distinct genotypes. Subtle morphological differences associated with the shape of sickle toe, anchor root and ventral bar membrane, according to host species, also supported the description of a new cryptic species, Gyrodactylus melas n. sp., infecting A. melas. Multivariate morphometrical analysis of haptoral hard parts showed significant differences between the anchor lengths of G. nebulosus and G. melas n. sp. However, the measurements of the haptoral hard structures partially overlapped between species, limiting the usage of these parameters for species delineation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据