Skip to main content
PMC home page
International Journal for Parasitology: Parasites and Wildlife logoLink to International Journal for Parasitology: Parasites and Wildlife
. 2013 Dec 12;3(2):220–226. doi: 10.1016/j.ijppaw.2013.11.001

Parasites as biological tags to assess host population structure: Guidelines, recent genetic advances and comments on a holistic approach☆

Sarah R Catalano a,b,c,⁎, Ian D Whittington a,c,d, Stephen C Donnellan c,e, Bronwyn M Gillanders b,f
PMCID: PMC4152261  PMID: 25197624

Graphical abstract

Hundreds of dicyemid parasites (white, fuzzy strands) attached to the renal appendage (in red) of a cuttlefish individual.

Keywords: Marine parasites, Host stock discrimination, Multidiscipline approach, Next-generation sequencing, Tag guidelines, Dicyemida

Highlights

  • •

    Parasites as biological tags to assess host population structure.

  • •

    Recent molecular advances support incorporation of parasite genetic data.

  • •

    Guidelines for selection of a parasite species as a tag candidate updated.

  • •

    Holistic approach allows for robustness and support of observed result.

Abstract

We review the use of parasites as biological tags of marine fishes and cephalopods in host population structure studies. The majority of the work published has focused on marine fish and either single parasite species or more recently, whole parasite assemblages, as biological tags. There is representation of host organisms and parasites from a diverse range of taxonomic groups, although focus has primarily been on host species of commercial importance. In contrast, few studies have used parasites as tags to assess cephalopod population structure, even though records of parasites infecting cephalopods are well-documented. Squid species are the only cephalopod hosts for which parasites as biological tags have been applied, with anisakid nematode larvae and metacestodes being the parasite taxa most frequently used. Following a brief insight into the importance of accurate parasite identification, the population studies that have used parasites as biological tags for marine fishes and cephalopods are reviewed, including comments on the dicyemid mesozoans. The advancement of molecular genetic techniques is discussed in regards to the new ways parasite genetic data can be incorporated into population structure studies, alongside host population genetic analyses, followed by an update on the guidelines for selecting a parasite species as a reliable tag candidate. As multiple techniques and methods can be used to assess the population structure of marine organisms (e.g. artificial tags, phenotypic characters, biometrics, life history, genetics, otolith microchemistry and parasitological data), we conclude by commenting on a holistic approach to allow for a deeper insight into population structuring.

1. Introduction

Determination of the biological identity of a population of marine organisms (for this review, limited to fishes and cephalopods), in relation to neighbouring populations of the same species, is a vital prerequisite in studying the biology, dynamics, interactions and ecological consequences of exploitation on that population (MacKenzie and Abaunza, 1998). This is particularly important given the rise in global fisheries as more species are being targeted and commercially exploited to keep up with increases in demand (Pierce and Guerra, 1994; Evans and Grainger, 2002). Marine species considered at risk as a result of overfishing, evident from declines in biomass and abundance, emphasise the importance of understanding the structure of populations across geographical distributions (Melendy et al., 2005; McClelland and Melendy, 2007). As alluded to already, before a stock can be efficiently managed and policies implemented for future sustainability, the stock needs to be correctly identified (Oliva and Sanchez, 2005).

Many techniques have been used to identify and discriminate stocks, including the application of artificial tags, such as acoustic tags, coded wire tags, passive integrated transponder tags and archival tags. Artificial tags are generally suitable for many species and sizes of organisms, with an added advantage of enabling discrete recognition of each tagged individual (Gillanders, 2009). However, they can be limited in signal detection range and retention over long term studies, with further uncertainties about the influence of the tag on the organism’s behaviour and survivorship (Moser, 1991; Mosquera et al., 2003; Gillanders, 2009). Natural tags, including phenotypic characters (meristic, morphometric and life history traits), otolith chemistry, molecular genetic host markers and parasites, have also been used in population structure studies. In particular, parasites as biological tags have gained wide acceptance in recent decades (MacKenzie, 2002; Poulin and Kamiya, in press), as they can provide a reliable guide to understanding the biology of their host (Pascual and Hochberg, 1996). This is not to say parasites as tags are superior to other methods, but it is recognised that they have helped answer questions on host diet and feeding behaviour, movements and ranges, connectivity of stocks, recruitment patterns of juveniles and phylogenies (Sindermann, 1961; Moser, 1991; Williams et al., 1992; Criscione et al., 2006). Parasites have also been used as bio-indicators of pollution (Poulin, 1992; MacKenzie et al., 1995; MacKenzie, 1999a), and in population studies to discriminate stocks (MacKenzie, 1987, 2002; Lester, 1990; MacKenzie and Abaunza, 1998; Mosquera et al., 2003). Research on parasites as biological tags for marine organisms has increased at a steady rate, with nine papers on this subject published from the 1950s, more than 30 from the 1960s, more than 50 from the 1970s and more than 140 from the 1980s (Williams et al., 1992). Here, we focus on the use of parasites as biological tags for host population discrimination. We use the words ‘stock’ and ‘population’ interchangeably in this review, following the definition provided by Charters et al. (2010) of ‘a spatially distinct group of marine organisms which exhibit no significant mixing with neighbouring individuals’. In agreement with Lester and MacKenzie (2009), we recognise the idea that this distinct group is essentially self-reproducing.

This review begins by briefly commenting on the importance of accurate parasite identification, followed by a summary of the use of parasites as biological tags in population structure studies of fishes and cephalopods. Due to the advent of molecular genetic technologies, the potential to incorporate genetic analyses of parasite population structure alongside genetic analyses of their host is discussed. An updated list of guidelines for selecting a parasite species as an adequate tag candidate is presented, and we conclude by highlighting the benefits of a multidisciplinary approach when investigating the population structure of marine organisms.

2. Parasite identification

Along with the need to correctly identify a stock before it can be appropriately managed, parasites also need to be correctly identified before they can be applied as biological tags. We add the caveat that in some cases the minimum necessary identification would be to discriminate each of the parasite species present without the further and potentially time consuming requirement of assigning scientific names. Classical methods commonly used for parasite taxonomic identification involve examining and measuring morphological character traits and using taxonomic keys to define a particular family, genus or species (Baldwin et al., 2012). Although widely used and relatively inexpensive, this form of identification can be difficult for larval stages and further hindered by poor specimen quality and taxonomic uncertainty in the literature. “Species” that exhibit a high level of morphological plasticity also pose a problem (Poulin and Morand, 2000). On one hand, several distinct species may be mistakenly identified as one, or a single morphologically plastic taxon may be interpreted as a species complex inferring significant host population structure.

Another approach to identify parasite species is to use molecular genetic methods (McManus and Bowles, 1996). Indeed, once a sound molecular genetic framework has been established for the species concerned, then higher throughput bar-coding can be applied to much larger sample sets. Another advantage of this approach would be that all stages of the parasite life cycle that could be sampled can be included, potentially increasing the matching parasite data for a larger number of host individuals collected over a longer period of the year. A combination of morphological and molecular genetic methods may therefore be more robust for identifying and discriminating parasite taxa, and should be considered in future studies using parasites as biological tags.

3. Parasites as biological tags in population studies of fishes

The two earliest records describing the application of parasites as biological tags in population studies of fishes are that of Dogiel and Bychovsky (1939), who distinguished between groups of sturgeon (Acipenser spp.) in the Caspian Sea using the monogenean parasites Diclybothrium circularis and Nitzschia sturionis, and Herrington et al. (1939), who examined redfish (Sebastes marinus) in the Gulf of Maine and suggested the existence of separate populations based on variations in infection levels of the parasitic copepod Sphyrion lumpi. Since these investigations over 70 years ago, the use of parasites as biological tags in population structure studies has flourished to include a wide range of fish species and geographical localities. Investigations have primarily focused on, although not limited to, fish species of economic importance, such as herring (e.g. Sindermann, 1961; Parsons and Hodder, 1971; Arthur and Arai, 1980; Moser and Hsieh, 1992), hake (e.g. MacKenzie and Longshaw, 1995; George-Nascimento, 1996; Mattiucci et al., 2004; Sardella and Timi, 2004), cod (e.g. Hemmingsen and MacKenzie, 2001; McClelland and Melendy, 2011), rockfish (e.g. Stanley et al., 1992; Moles et al., 1998; Oliva and Gonzalez, 2004) and hoki (e.g. MacKenzie et al., 2013). A diverse range of taxonomic groups of parasites have also been applied as biological tags (see Table 1 in Williams et al., 1992). In particular, parasites have been used for discovering multiple species in supposedly single species fisheries (e.g. Smith et al., 1981; George-Nascimento, 1996), for discriminating stocks within single species fisheries (e.g. Hemmingsen et al., 1991; Braicovich and Timi, 2008; Henriquez et al., 2011) and for recognising single stocks from multiple breeding populations (e.g. Moser and Hsieh, 1992). Recently, Poulin and Kamiya (in press) performed a meta-analysis to examine the discriminatory power of using parasites to discriminate fish stocks, and found that overall, the probability of correct classification of fish to their group of origin based on parasite data was double that expected by chance alone, supporting the use of parasites as biological tags.

The benefits and limitations of using parasites as biological tags has been extensively reported by Sindermann (1961, 1983), Gibson (1972), MacKenzie (1987, 1999b, 2002), Lester (1990), Moser (1991), Williams et al. (1992), Pascual and Hochberg (1996) and Mosquera et al. (2003), and thus will not be repeated here. The use of parasites as biological tags in population structure studies has also been reviewed by many authors (Sindermann, 1983; MacKenzie, 1987; Lester, 1990; Williams et al., 1992), with a guide to the procedures and methods provided by MacKenzie and Abaunza (1998). The most recent reviews of parasites as biological tags in fish population studies are given by MacKenzie (1999b, 2002), Mosquera et al. (2003) and MacKenzie and Abaunza (2005). In the past 5 years, numerous studies have been published which used parasites as biological tags as the sole approach to discriminate fish stocks (for example Santos et al., 2009; Timi and Lanfranchi, 2009; Timi et al., 2009; Charters et al., 2010; Luque et al., 2010; Mele et al., 2010; Sequeira et al., 2010; Chou et al., 2011; Garcia et al., 2011; Henriquez et al., 2011; Hutson et al., 2011; Khan et al., 2011; McClelland and Melendy, 2011; Moore et al., 2011; Braicovich et al., 2012; Reed et al., 2012; Costa et al., 2013; MacKenzie et al., 2013; Oliva, 2013).

With this increase in the number of studies using parasites as biological tags to discriminate host stocks, Lester and MacKenzie (2009) provide a word of caution. They highlight that although differences in parasite fauna may be observed from fish collected at different geographical localities, it does not necessarily mean that there are multiple fish stocks, as many parasites are transient and may only be present sometimes. Leading on from this, it is suggested that a deeper insight or more robust conclusions may be gained from using a multidisciplinary approach to determine stock structure, a topic that will be discussed further in Section 7.

4. Parasites as biological tags in population studies of cephalopods, including comments on the dicyemid mesozoans

Over the last 20 years, the value of cephalopods in international commercial fisheries has increased rapidly (Pierce and Guerra, 1994; Pascual et al., 1996). However, cephalopods are highly susceptible to overfishing with little opportunity for recovery, owing to their short life spans, variable growth rates and semelparous breeding strategies (Pierce and Guerra, 1994; Boyle and Boletzky, 1996). Therefore, it is important to be able to recognise stock boundaries to ensure management policies governing commercial cephalopod fisheries are well-informed.

While numerous parasite species from a range of taxonomic groups have been described from cephalopods (Hochberg, 1983, 1990), their application as biological tags in population studies is rare (Pascual and Hochberg, 1996). The first study where parasites were used to examine cephalopod stock structure was performed by Smith et al. (1981). The authors used a multidisciplinary approach of allozyme electrophoresis, host morphology and prevalence of parasites in arrow squid Nototodarus sloani from New Zealand waters to assess stock structure, with the combined results supporting the occurrence of two species of arrow squid in these waters. It is doubtful whether the same result would have been concluded if parasites alone were used, as one parasite species did not support stock separation whereas the other did. A few years later, Dawe et al. (1984) addressed the issue of stock discrimination in the short-finned squid Illex illecebrosus, also employing a multidisciplinary approach by comparing data on host size, maturity, distribution of early life history stages and incidence of certain parasites. However the parasites examined were of little use as biological tags, as they had a broad geographic distribution, were generalist rather than specialist parasites, and could not be identified to species. Later, Bower and Margolis (1991) and Nagasawa et al. (1998) examined the helminth parasites of the flying squid, Ommastrephes bartrami, in the North Pacific Ocean. Bower and Margolis (1991) suggested that parasites may be useful tools in determining the stock structure of the flying squid, and Nagasawa et al. (1998) statistically tested parasite intensity of infection among collection localities to lend support to the occurrence of four flying squid stocks in these waters. The most recent study that has used parasites of cephalopods as biological tags is by González and Kroeck (2000). They studied the parasite fauna composition of shortfin squid Illex argentinus in San Matías Gulf, southwest Atlantic, with differences in composition, prevalence and mean intensity of enteric parasites between localities lending support to stock structuring.

An additional group of parasites, dicyemid mesozoans, have been suggested as potential tag candidates to help discriminate cephalopod stock structure (Hochberg, 1990; Catalano, 2013). These parasites are simple in morphology, highly host-species specific and found with high intensity in the renal appendages of almost all benthic cephalopod species examined to date (Furuya, 1999; Furuya et al., 2004). The use of dicyemid parasites as biological tags for cephalopod stock discrimination has been tested, with significant difference in dicyemid fauna composition between cephalopod species, and among cephalopod individuals of the same species collected from different geographical localities (Catalano et al., unpublished). However it must be highlighted that confusion exists in the literature on the validity of certain taxa within this phylum along with the morphological traits used to delineate species boundaries (Catalano, 2012). Nonetheless, by incorporating a molecular genetic framework, and comparing results between dicyemid parasite and host genetic analyses, this approach may still prove valuable in assessing cephalopod population structure beyond any single approach.

5. Recent genetic advances

Beverley-Burton (1978) was the first to use genetic analyses of parasite populations as a tool for host stock identification. The frequencies of different acid phosphatase allozymes in the larval nematode Anisakis simplex suggested that there may be two distinct groups of Atlantic salmon in the Atlantic Ocean. Other authors have used genetic methods (multilocus allozyme electrophoresis) to identify Anisakis larvae to species level, then by evaluating the relative proportions of these nematodes across sampling localities, recognised multiple discrete host stocks (Mattiucci et al., 2004, 2008).

In recent years there have been major technological advances in the field of molecular genetics, providing the ability to sequence multiple markers or whole genomes in a short time span with low costs, e.g. next generation sequencing (Schuster, 2007; Mardis, 2008; Quail et al., 2012). In fisheries science, multiple molecular markers such as allozymes, mitochondrial DNA, microsatellite and minisatellite loci, random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), have all been used to analyse stock structure of marine organisms directly (Carvalho and Hauser, 1994; Thorpe et al., 2000; Baldwin et al., 2012; Ovenden et al., 2013). This has proven useful for deep-sea species where tag-recapture techniques are difficult to apply (e.g. Roques et al., 2002; Friess and Sedberry, 2011; Varela et al., 2013). As candidate molecular markers that are under selection can now be identified and genotyped readily, the capability also exists to assess genetic differences between recently diverged groups or between incompletely isolated groups, which was otherwise problematic with neutral molecular markers (Swain et al., 2005; Lamichhaney et al., 2012). These advances have subsequently helped to unveil previously unrecognised patterns of geographic genetic structure in marine organism (Sala-Bozano et al., 2009).

What is yet to be realised in any substantive way is the application of these new molecular genetic technologies, with high throughput and increased resolution, to parasitological studies of host population structure. Additional layers of information may be gained by contrasting the genetic population structure of parasite and host not just for determining host population structure but details of the hosts population biology (e.g. Pacific sardines – Baldwin et al. 2012). In the one example that we can find where the same class of high resolution population markers (microsatellites) were used in both parasite and host, Criscione et al. (2006) found that trematode parasite genetic structure identified source populations of host steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) with four times more accuracy than the host’s own genotype. This finding highlights how differences in host and parasite environmental tolerances, population size and connectivity influence their rates of population differentiation. We are not suggesting skipping over host genetics to assess population structure, but instead advocating the inclusion of parasite genetics into these studies for what may provide an additional line of confirmatory evidence or new insights into host structuring. As with any molecular genetic study, it is important to recognise that the results will depend on, and may differ, with the type of molecular genetic markers used, the number of loci examined, the geographical scope of the study, the number of fish sampled and the population biology of the parasite taxa examined (Baldwin et al., 2012). To boost the analytical power of these genetic analyses, it is recommended to increase the sample size, the number of molecular markers and loci used, and the number of parasite taxa included (Ovenden et al., 2013).

6. Guidelines for selecting an ideal parasite species as a tag candidate

According to Thorrold et al. (2002), the properties of a general tag, including artificial and environmental tags, genetic markers and parasites, should have the following characteristics:

  • 1)

    Retention of the tag over an appropriate length of time.

  • 2)

    No effect of the tag on the marked organism (invisible to predators, non-toxic, no effect on growth or survival).

  • 3)

    Ability to mark a large number of individuals in a cost-effective manner.

  • 4)

    Be relatively quick and inexpensive to detect.

In addition to these characteristics for tags in general, there are also a number of specific guidelines presented in the literature which highlight the desirable requirements a parasite species should have in being considered as a biological tag candidate. For example, the following are taken from Sindermann (1961, 1983), MacKenzie (1987, 1999b), Lester (1990), Moser (1991), Williams et al. (1992) and MacKenzie and Abaunza (1998):

  • 1)

    The parasite species should have different levels of infection in the host at different geographical locations.

  • 2)

    The life cycle of the parasite species should preferably involve only a single host as more information is needed on the biotic and abiotic factors influencing transmission between hosts for those parasite species with multi-host life cycles.

  • 3)

    The life span of the parasite species in the host needs to cover the duration of the investigation as a minimum.

  • 4)

    The prevalence of the parasite species should remain relatively stable between seasons and years.

  • 5)

    The parasite species should be easily detected, preferably by gross examination.

  • 6)

    The parasite species should have no effects on the behaviour or survival of the host.

It is wise to acknowledge that these guidelines are just that, recommendations rather than set rules. A single parasite species would rarely have all of these attributes, so compromises usually have to be made (Sindermann, 1983; MacKenzie and Abaunza, 1998). For instance, in some cases, anisakids and trypanorhynchs, parasites that require at least three host species to complete their life cycle (contravening guideline 2 above), have been found to be the best tag candidates (Boje et al., 1997; MacKenzie and Abaunza, 1998; Timi, 2007; Chou et al., 2011). Additionally, the use of several different parasites and even whole parasite assemblages as tags may be more reliable than using a single species, as a greater number of the guidelines may be met to yield a more complete assessment of host population structure (Timi, 2003, 2007; Sardella and Timi, 2004; MacKenzie and Abaunza, 2005). Note that if this approach is selected, only parasite species highlighted as permanent (recognisable for most of the life of the host) should be considered (Lester and MacKenzie, 2009).

7. Holistic approach to discriminate population structure of marine organisms

Rather than focusing on only a single approach to discriminate fish stocks, it may be of greater benefit to consider incorporating data across disciplines, as different stock identification approaches have different levels of sensitivities (Waldman, 2005). Meristics, parasite data and microsatellite markers can be used to detect differences that have arisen in the recent past, whereas other techniques which are more conservative, such as allozymes and coding DNA, require longer periods of isolation for differences to become recognisable (Cadrin, 2011). Therefore by combining approaches across disciplines, a more robust baseline is created and greater confidence in the observed result is gained (Cadrin, 2010). For example, Zischke et al. (2013) used morphometric measurements of 12 fixed anatomical characters and variation in parasite abundance of seven species to examine the stock structure of wahoo Acanthocybium solandri collected in three regions, with the results from both analyses complementing one another in stock boundary estimates. For future studies examining the global stock structure of wahoo, they suggest incorporating additional techniques such as otolith microchemistry and genetic microsatellites. In another study, life history data (age at first maturity, size structure and growth patterns), otolith microchemistry and parasite fauna composition were used to distinguish stocks of southern blue whiting Micromesistius australis between two main spawning grounds in the southwest Atlantic Ocean and southeast Pacific Ocean (Arkhipkin et al., 2009; Niklitschek et al., 2010). This contrasted with the results of earlier genetic studies based on mitochondrial DNA haplotype frequencies, which did not detect any significant differences between these areas (Shaw, 2003, 2005). More recently, Baldwin et al. (2012) reviewed the use of fish morphometrics, artificial tags, fish genetics, parasite genetics and parasites as biological tags to identify subpopulations of marine fishes and affirmed the merits of a holistic approach, integrating data from fish and parasite based techniques (both community and genetic), to resolve stock structuring. Other authors also express support for using complementary methods from a broad spectrum, with different ecological and evolutionary characteristics, to provide a comprehensive picture of the population structure of marine organisms (Begg and Waldman, 1999; Cadrin et al., 2005; Sala-Bozano et al., 2009).

A multidisciplinary approach also provides additional techniques available for use in subsequent stock analysis studies (Cadrin, 2011). For example, Roques et al. (2002) used eight microsatellite loci initially to identify fish stocks of the western group of deepwater redfish Sebastes marinum, with these stocks subdivided into four smaller groups in a subsequent study that used parasite species prevalence data (Marcogliese et al., 2003). Early research on the winter flounder stock structure primarily focused on migration, life history rates and analysis of meristic characters, however over time, genetic analyses, parasite fauna composition, modelling analyses, otolith chemistry and telemetry tagging were incorporated, building on from this initial framework for a more robust and supported insight (Cadrin, 2011). Stock delineation of the Pacific hake Merluccius productus has also been assessed with a variety of techniques in different studies, including parasite analyses (Kabata and Whitaker, 1981), otolith morphology (McFarlane and Beamish, 1985), biological parameter estimates (Beamish and McFarlane, 1985; King and McFarlane, 2006) and mitochondrial sequence data (King et al., 2012). In summary, it seems viable that a multidisciplinary approach which integrates data across fields, such as molecular genetics, biometrics, life histories, modelling, otolith microchemistry analyses, artificial tagging studies and parasitological surveys, may provide a deeper and more robust insight into the population structuring of marine organisms in contrast to studies using a sole approach. There is also a need to utilise the recent advancements in these fields as tools to improve our understanding of stock boundaries.

8. Closing remarks

Our review highlights the usefulness of parasites as biological tags in population structure studies of marine organisms. However caution must be taken in selecting the most appropriate tag candidate species, as well as considerations on the number of taxa to include, the method of parasite identification and the way the data are analysed. With the recent advancement of molecular genetic techniques, we highlight the potential to include parasite genetic data alongside host intra-specific molecular genetic data, an area that is currently under-exploited. In particular the use of high resolution neutral markers or loci under selection in both the parasite and host to detect recent demographic driven host population structure is unexplored. As multiple approaches can be used to assess population structure of marine organisms, each with their own benefits and limitations, we ultimately advocate the integration of data from multiple disciplines for a deeper insight into population structuring. Due to the different levels of sensitivity of each method, additional layers of information may be gained or weak inferences may be better assessed using a holistic approach.

Acknowledgements

Thanks are due to Tim Benson for insightful discussions. Funding to examine the dicyemid parasite fauna of Australian cephalopods was provided by the Australian Society for Parasitology, Norman Wettenhall Foundation, Holsworth Wildlife Research Endowment, Sir Mark Mitchell Research Foundation, Lirabenda Endowment Fund, Nature Foundation South Australia, Nature Conservation Society of South Australia, and Australian Federation of University Women South Australia. S.R.C. is supported by an Australian Postgraduate Award and B.M.G. by an ARC Future Fellowship (FT100100767).

Footnotes

☆

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

References

  1. Arkhipkin A.I., Schuchert P.C., Danyushevsky L. Otolith chemistry reveals fine population structure and close affinity to the Pacific and Atlantic oceanic spawning grounds in the migratory southern blue whiting (Micromesistius australis australis) Fish. Res. 2009;96:188–194. [Google Scholar]
  2. Arthur J.R., Arai H.P. Studies on the parasites of Pacific herring (Clupea harengus pallasi Valenciennnes): a preliminary evaluation of parasites as indicators of geographical origin for spawning herring. Can. J. Zool. 1980;58:521–527. [Google Scholar]
  3. Baldwin R.E., Banks M.A., Jacobson K.C. Integrating fish and parasite data as a holistic solution for identifying the elusive stock structure of Pacific sardines (Sardinops sagax) Rev. Fish Biol. Fisher. 2012;22:137–156. [Google Scholar]
  4. Beamish R.J., McFarlane G.A. Pacific whiting, Merluccius productus, stocks off the west coast of Vancouver Island, Canada. Mar. Fish. Rev. 1985;47:75–81. [Google Scholar]
  5. Begg G.A., Waldman J.R. An holistic approach to fish stock identification. Fish. Res. 1999;43:35–44. [Google Scholar]
  6. Beverley-Burton M. Population genetics of Anisakis simplex (Nematoda: Ascaridoidea) in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and their use as biological indicators of host stocks. Environ. Biol. Fish. 1978;3:369–377. [Google Scholar]
  7. Boje J., Riget F., Køie M. Helminth parasites as biological tags in population studies of Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides (Walbaum)), in the north-west Atlantic. J. Mar. Sci. 1997;54:886–895. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bower S.M., Margolis L. Potential use of helminth parasites in stock identification of flying squid, Ommastrephes bartrami, in North Pacific waters. Can. J. Zool. 1991;69:1124–1126. [Google Scholar]
  9. Boyle P.R., Boletzky S.V. Cephalopod populations: definition and dynamics. Philos. T. R. Soc. B. 1996;351:985–1002. [Google Scholar]
  10. Braicovich P.E., Timi J.T. Parasites as biological tags for stock discrimination of the Brazilian flathead Percophis brasiliensis in the south-west Atlantic. J. Fish. Biol. 2008;73:557–571. [Google Scholar]
  11. Braicovich P.E., Luque J.L., Timi J.T. Geographical patterns of parasite infracommunities in the rough scad, Trachurus lathami Nichols, in the Southwestern Atlantic ocean. J. Parasitol. 2012;98:768–777. doi: 10.1645/GE-2950.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Cadrin S.X. Interdisciplinary analysis of yellowtail flounder stock structure off New England. Rev. Fish. Sci. 2010;18:281–299. [Google Scholar]
  13. Cadrin S.X. An interdisciplinary assessment of winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) stock structure. J. Northwest Atl. Fish. 2011;43:103–120. [Google Scholar]
  14. Cadrin S.X., Friedland K.D., Waldman J.R. Stock identification methods: an overview. In: Cadrin S.X., Friedland K.D., Waldman J.R., editors. Stock Identification Methods: Applications in Fishery Science. Elsevier; NY: 2005. pp. 3–6. [Google Scholar]
  15. Carvalho G.R., Hauser L. Molecular genetics and the stock concept in fisheries. Rev. Fish Biol. Fisher. 1994;4:326–350. [Google Scholar]
  16. Catalano S.R. A review of the families, genera and species of Dicyemida Van Beneden, 1876. Zootaxa. 2012;3479:1–32. [Google Scholar]
  17. Catalano S.R. Five new species of dicyemid mesozoans (Dicyemida: Dicyemidae) from two Australian cuttlefish species, with comments on dicyemid fauna composition. Sys. Parasitol. 2013;86:125–151. doi: 10.1007/s11230-013-9443-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Charters R.A., Lester R.J.G., Buckworth R.C., Newman S.J., Ovenden J.R., Broderick D., Kravchuk O., Ballagh A., Welch D.J. The stock structure of grey mackerel Scomberomorus semifasciatus in Australia as inferred from its parasite fauna. Fish. Res. 2010;101:94–99. [Google Scholar]
  19. Chou Y.Y., Wang C.S., Chen H.G., Chen H.Y., Chen S.N., Shih H.H. Parasitism between Anisakis simplex (Nematoda: Anisakidae) third-stage larvae and the spotted mackerel Scomber australasicus with regard to the application of stock identification. Vet. Parasitol. 2011;177:324–331. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2010.12.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Costa G., Santamaria M.T.G., Vasconcelos J., Perera C.B., Melo-Moreira E. Endoparasites of Trachurus picturatus (Pisces: Carangidae) from the Madeira and Canary Islands: selecting parasites for use as tags. Sci. Mar. 2013;77:61–68. [Google Scholar]
  21. Criscione C.D., Cooper B., Blouin M.S. Parasite genotypes identify source populations of migratory fish more accurately than fish genotypes. Ecology. 2006;87:823–828. doi: 10.1890/0012-9658(2006)87[823:pgispo]2.0.co;2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Dawe E.G., Mercer M.C., Threlfall W. On the stock identity of short-finned squid (Illex illecebrosus) in the Northwest Atlantic. NAFO Sci. Coun. Stud. 1984;7:77–86. [Google Scholar]
  23. Dogiel V.A., Bychovsky B.E. Parasites of fishes of the Caspian Sea. Trudy Kompleksnoi Izucheniyu Kaspiiskogo Morya. 1939;7:1–150. (in Russian) [Google Scholar]
  24. Evans D., Grainger R. Gathering data for resource monitoring and fisheries management. In: Hart P.J.B., Reynolds J.D., editors. vol. 2. Blackwell Publishing; Oxford: 2002. pp. 84–102. (Handbook of Fish Biology and Fisheries). [Google Scholar]
  25. Friess C., Sedberry G.R. Genetic evidence for a single stock of the deep-sea teleost Beryx decadactylus in the North Atlantic Ocean as inferred from mtDNA control region analysis. J. Fish. Biol. 2011;78:466–478. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8649.2010.02857.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Furuya H. Fourteen new species of dicyemid mesozoans from six Japanese cephalopods, with comments on host specificity. Spec. Div. 1999;4:257–319. [Google Scholar]
  27. Furuya H., Ota M., Kimura R., Tsuneki K. Renal organs of cephalopods: a habitat for dicyemids and chromidinids. J. Morphol. 2004;262:629–643. doi: 10.1002/jmor.10265. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Garcia A., Mattiucci S., Damiano S., Santos M.N., Nascetti G. Metazoan parasites of swordfish, Xiphias gladius (Pisces: Xiphiidae) from the Atlantic Ocean: implications for host stock identification. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2011;68:175–182. [Google Scholar]
  29. George-Nascimento M. Populations and assemblages of parasites in hake, Merluccius gayi, from the southeastern Pacific Ocean: stock implications. J. Fish. Biol. 1996;48:557–568. [Google Scholar]
  30. Gibson D.I. Flounder parasites as biological tags. J. Fish. Biol. 1972;4:1–9. [Google Scholar]
  31. Gillanders B.M. Tools for studying biological marine ecosystem interactions - natural and artifical tags. In: Nagelkerken I., editor. Ecological Connectivity Among Tropical Coastal Ecosystems. Springer; Netherlands: 2009. pp. 457–492. [Google Scholar]
  32. González R.A., Kroeck M.A. Enteric helminths of the shortfin squid Illex argentinus in San Matías Gulf (Argentina) as stock discriminants. Acta Parasitol. 2000;45:89–93. [Google Scholar]
  33. Hemmingsen W., MacKenzie K. The parasite fauna of the Atlantic cod, Gadus morhua L. Adv. Mar. Biol. 2001;40:1–80. [Google Scholar]
  34. Hemmingsen W., Lombardo I., MacKenzie K. Parasites as biological tags for cod, Gadus morhua L., in northern Norway: a pilot study. Fish. Res. 1991;12:365–373. [Google Scholar]
  35. Henriquez V.P., Gonzalez M.T., Licandeo R., Carvajal J. Metazoan parasite communities of rock cod Eleginops maclovinus along southern Chilean coast and their use as biological tags at a local spatial scale. J. Fish. Biol. 2011;79:1851–1865. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8649.2011.03126.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Herrington, W.C., Bearse, H.M., Firth, F.E., 1939. Observations on the life history, occurrence and distribution of the redfish parasite Sphyrion lumpi. In: United States Bureau of Fisheries Special Report, vol. 5, pp. 1–18.
  37. Hochberg F.G. The parasites of cephalopods: a review. Mem. Nat. Mus. Vic. 1983;44:108–145. [Google Scholar]
  38. Hochberg F.G. Diseases caused by protists and mesozoans. In: Kinne O., editor. Diseases of Marine Animals. vol. 3. Hamburg; Germany: 1990. pp. 47–202. (Biologische Anstalt Helgoland). [Google Scholar]
  39. Hutson K.S., Brock E.L., Steer M.A. Spatial variation in parasite abundance: evidence of geographical population structuring in southern garfish Hyporhamphus melanochir. J. Fish. Biol. 2011;78:166–182. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8649.2010.02849.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Kabata Z., Whitaker D.J. Two species of Kudoa (Myxosporea: Multivalvulida) parasitic in the flesh of Merluccius productus (Ayres, 1855) (Pisces: Teleostei) in the Canadian Pacific. Can. J. Zool. 1981;59:2085–2091. [Google Scholar]
  41. Khan R.A., Chandra C.V., Earle P. Comparison of metazoan parasites of Atlantic cod, Gadus morhua, from three geographical areas of coastal Newfoundland. J. Parasitol. 2011;97:270–274. doi: 10.1645/GE-2510.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. King, J.R., McFarlane, G.A., 2006. Shift in size-at-age of the strait of Georgia population of Pacific hake (Merluccius productus). In: California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations Report, vol. 47, pp. 111–118.
  43. King J.R., McFarlane G.A., Jones S.R.M., Gilmore S.R., Abbott C.L. Stock delineation of migratory and resident Pacific hake in Canadian waters. Fish. Res. 2012;114:19–30. [Google Scholar]
  44. Lamichhaney S., Barrio A.M., Rafati N., Sundström G., Rubin C., Gilbert E.R., Berglund J., Wetterbom A., Laikre L., Webster M.T., Grabherr M., Ryman N., Andersson L. Population-scale sequencing reveals genetic differentiation due to local adaptation in Atlantic herring. PNAS. 2012;109:19345–19350. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1216128109. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Lester R.J.G. Reappraisal of the use of parasites for fish stock identification. J. Mar. Freshwater Res. 1990;41:855–864. [Google Scholar]
  46. Lester R.J.G., MacKenzie K. The use and abuse of parasites as stock markers for fish. Fish. Res. 2009;97:1–2. [Google Scholar]
  47. Luque J.L., Cordeiro A.S., Oliva M.E. Metazoan parasites as biological tags for stock discrimination of whitemouth croaker Micropogonias furnieri. J. Fish. Biol. 2010;76:591–600. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8649.2009.02515.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. MacKenzie K. Parasites as indicators of host populations. Int. J. Parasitol. 1987;17:345–352. doi: 10.1016/0020-7519(87)90109-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. MacKenzie K. Parasites as pollution indicators in marine ecosystems: a proposed early warning system. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 1999;38:955–959. [Google Scholar]
  50. MacKenzie K. Parasites as biological tags in population studies of marine organisms. Qatar Univ. Sci. J. 1999;19:117–127. doi: 10.1017/s0031182002001518. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. MacKenzie K. Parasites as biological tags in population studies of marine organisms: an update. Parasitology. 2002;124:153–163. doi: 10.1017/s0031182002001518. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. MacKenzie K., Longshaw M. Parasites of the hakes Merluccius australis and M. hubbsi in the waters around the Falkland Islands, southern Chile, and Argentina, with an assessment of their potential value as biological tags. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1995;52(S1):213–224. [Google Scholar]
  53. MacKenzie K., Williams H.H., Williams B., McVicar A.H., Siddall R. Parasites as indicators of water-quality and the potential use of helminth transmission in marine pollution studies. Adv. Parasitol. 1995;35:85–144. doi: 10.1016/s0065-308x(08)60070-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. MacKenzie K., Abaunza P. Parasites as biological tags for stock discrimination of marine fish: a guide to procedures and methods. Fish. Res. 1998;38:45–56. [Google Scholar]
  55. MacKenzie K., Abaunza P. Parasites as biological tags. In: Cadrin S.X., Friedland K.D., Waldman J.R., editors. Stock Identification Methods: Applications of Fisheries Science. Elsevier; NY: 2005. pp. 211–226. [Google Scholar]
  56. MacKenzie K., Brickle P., Hemmingsen W., George-Nascimento M. Parasites of hoki, Macruronus magellanicus, in the southwest Atlantic and southeast Pacific oceans, with an assessment of their potential value as biological tags. Fish. Res. 2013;145:1–5. [Google Scholar]
  57. Marcogliese D.J., Albert E., Gagnon P., Sevigny J.M. Use of parasites in stock identification of the deepwater redfish (Sebastes mentella) in the Northwest Atlantic. Fish. Bull. 2003;101:183–188. [Google Scholar]
  58. Mardis E.R. The impact of next-generation sequencing technology on genetics. Trends Gen. 2008;24:133–141. doi: 10.1016/j.tig.2007.12.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Mattiucci S., Abaunza P., Ramadori L., Nascetti G. Genetic identification of Anisakis larvae in European hake from Atlantic and Mediterranean waters for stock recognition. J. Fish. Biol. 2004;65:495–510. [Google Scholar]
  60. Mattiucci S., Farina V., Campbell N., MacKenzie K., Ramos P., Pinto A.L., Abaunza P., Nascetti G. Anisakis spp. larvae (Nematoda: Anisakidae) from Atlantic horse mackerel: their genetic identification and use as biological tags for host stock characterization. Fish. Res. 2008;89:146–151. [Google Scholar]
  61. McClelland G., Melendy J. Use of endoparasitic helminths as tags in delineating stocks of American plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides) from the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence and Cape Breton Shelf. Fish. Bull. 2007;105:180–188. [Google Scholar]
  62. McClelland G., Melendy J. Use of parasites as tags in delineating stocks of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) from the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Cape Breton Shelf. Fish. Res. 2011;107:233–238. [Google Scholar]
  63. McFarlane G.A., Beamish R.J. Biology and fishery of Pacific whiting, Merluccius productus, in the Strait of Georgia. Mar. Fish. Rev. 1985;47:23–34. [Google Scholar]
  64. McManus D.P., Bowles J. Molecular genetic approaches to parasite identification: their value in diagnostic parasitology and systematics. Int. J. Parasitol. 1996;26:687–704. doi: 10.1016/0020-7519(96)82612-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Mele S., Merella P., Macias D., Gomez M.J., Garippa G., Alemany F. Metazoan gill parasites of wild albacore Thunnus alalunga (Bonaterre, 1788) from the Balearic Sea (western Mediterranean) and their use as biological tags. Fish. Res. 2010;102:305–310. [Google Scholar]
  66. Melendy J., McClelland G., Hurlbut T. Use of parasite tags in delineating stocks of white hake (Urophycis tenuis) from the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence and Cape Breton Shelf. Fish. Res. 2005;76:392–400. [Google Scholar]
  67. Moles A., Heifetz J., Love D.C. Metazoan parasites as potential markers for selected Gulf of Alaska rockfishes. Fish. Bull. 1998;96:912–916. [Google Scholar]
  68. Moore B.R., Stapley J., Allsop Q., Newman S.J., Ballagh A., Welch D.J., Lester R.J.G. Stock structure of blue threadfin Eleutheronema tetradactylum across northern Australia, as indicated by parasites. J. Fish. Biol. 2011;78:928–936. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8649.2011.02917.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Moser M. Parasites as biological tags. Acta Parasitol. 1991;7:182–185. doi: 10.1016/0169-4758(91)90128-b. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Moser M., Hsieh J. Biological tags for stock separation in pacific herring Clupea harengus pallasi in California. J. Parasitol. 1992;78:54–60. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Mosquera J., de Castro M., Gomez-Gesteira M. Parasites as biological tags of fish populations: advantages and limitations. Comment. Theor. Biol. 2003;8:69–91. [Google Scholar]
  72. Nagasawa K., Mori J., Okamura H. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Oceanic Large Squids. Japan Marine Resources Exploitation Center; Tokyo: 1998. Parasites as biological tags of stocks of neon flying squid (Ommastrephes bartramii) in the North Pacific Ocean; pp. 49–64. [Google Scholar]
  73. Niklitschek E.J., Secor D.H., Toledo P., Lafon A., George-Nascimento M. Segregation of SE Pacific and SW Atlantic southern blue whiting stocks: integrating evidence from complementary otolith microchemistry and parasite assemblage approaches. Environ. Biol. Fish. 2010;89:399–413. [Google Scholar]
  74. Oliva M.E. Is Anisakis simplex s.l. a biological marker for stock identification of Strangomera bentincki from Chile? J. Fish. Biol. 2013;83:412–416. doi: 10.1111/jfb.12176. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Oliva M.E., Gonzalez M.T. Metazoan parasites of Sebastes capensis from two localities in northern Chile as tools for stock identification. J. Fish. Biol. 2004;64:170–175. [Google Scholar]
  76. Oliva M.E., Sanchez M.F. Metazoan parasites and commensals of the northern Chilean scallop Argopecten purpuratus (Lamarck, 1819) as tools for stock identification. Fish. Res. 2005;71:71–77. [Google Scholar]
  77. Ovenden J.R., Berry O., Welch D.J., Buckworth R.C., Dichmont C.M. Ocean’s eleven: a critical evaluation of the role of population, evolutionary and molecular genetics in the management of wild fisheries. Fish Fisher. 2013:1–35. [Google Scholar]
  78. Parsons L.S., Hodder V.M. Variation in the incidence of larval nematodes in herring from Canadian Atlantic waters. ICNAF Res. Bull. 1971;8:5–14. [Google Scholar]
  79. Pascual S., Hochberg F.G. Marine parasites as biological tags of cephalopod hosts. Parasitol. Today. 1996;12:324–327. doi: 10.1016/0169-4758(96)40004-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. Pascual S., Gestal C., Estevez J.M., Rodriguez H., Soto M., Abollo E., Arias C. Parasites in commercially-exploited cephalopods (Mollusca, Cephalopoda) in Spain: an updated perspective. Aquaculture. 1996;142:1–10. [Google Scholar]
  81. Pierce G.J., Guerra A. Stock assessment methods used for cephalopod fisheries. Fish. Res. 1994;21:255–285. [Google Scholar]
  82. Poulin R. Toxic pollution and parasitism in freshwater fish. Parasitol. Today. 1992;8:58–61. doi: 10.1016/0169-4758(92)90090-o. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  83. Poulin R., Morand S. The diversity of parasites. Quarter. Rev. Biol. 2000;75:277–293. doi: 10.1086/393500. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  84. Poulin, R., Kamiya, T., in press. Parasites as biological tags of fish stocks: a meta-analysis of their discriminatory power. Parasitology 1–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0031182013001534. [DOI] [PubMed]
  85. Quail M.A., Smith M.A., Coupland P., Otto T.D., Harris S.R., Connor T.R., Bertoni A., Swerdlow H.P., Gu Y. A tale of three next generation sequencing platforms: comparison of Ion Torrent, Pacific biosciences and Illumina MiSeq sequencers. BMC Genomics. 2012;13:1–13. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-341. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  86. Reed C., MacKenzie K., van der Lingen C.D. Parasites of South African sardines, Sardinops sagax, and an assessment of their potential as biological tags. Bull. Eur. Assoc. Fish Pathol. 2012;32:41–48. [Google Scholar]
  87. Roques S., Sevigny J.M., Bernatchez L. Genetic structure of deep-water redfish, Sebastes mentella, populations across the North Atlantic. Mar. Biol. 2002;140:297–307. [Google Scholar]
  88. Sala-Bozano M., Ketmaier V., Mariani S. Contrasting signals from multiple markers illuminate population connectivity in a marine fish. Mol. Ecol. 2009;18:4811–4826. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2009.04404.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  89. Santos M.J., Saraiva A., Cruz C., Eiras J.C., Hermida M., Ventura C., Soares J.P. Use of parasites as biological tags in stock identification of the black scabbardfish, Aphanopus carbo Lowe, 1839 (Osteichthyes: Trichiuridae) from Portuguese waters. Sci. Mar. 2009;73:55–62. [Google Scholar]
  90. Sardella N.H., Timi J.T. Parasites of Argentine hake in the Argentine Sea: population and infracommunity structure as evidence for host stock discrimination. J. Fish. Biol. 2004;65:1472–1488. [Google Scholar]
  91. Schuster S.C. Next-generation sequencing transforms today’s biology. Nature. 2007;5:16–18. doi: 10.1038/nmeth1156. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  92. Sequeira V., Gordo L.S., Neves A., Paiva R.B., Cabral H.N., Marques J.F. Macroparasites as biological tags for stock identification of the bluemouth, Helicolenus dactylopterus (Delaroche, 1809) in Portuguese waters. Fish. Res. 2010;106:321–328. [Google Scholar]
  93. Shaw, P.W., 2003. Testing for genetic subdivision of the southern blue whiting (Micromesistius australis). In: Scientific Report, Fisheries Department, Falkland Islands Government, Stanley, Falkland Islands, pp. 22.
  94. Shaw, P.W., 2005. Using mitochondrial DNA markers to test for differences between nuclear and mitochondrial genome genetic subdivision of the southern blue whiting (Micromesistius australis). In: Scientific Report, Fisheries Department, Falkland Islands Government, Stanley, Falkland Islands, pp. 20.
  95. Sindermann C.J. Parasite tags for marine fish. J. Wildlife Manage. 1961;25:41–47. [Google Scholar]
  96. Sindermann C.J. Parasites as natural tags for marine fish: a review. NAFO Sci. Coun. Stud. 1983;6:63–71. [Google Scholar]
  97. Smith P.J., Roberts P.E., Hurst R.J. Evidence for two species of arrow squid in the New Zealand fishery. New Zeal. J. Mar. Fresh. Res. 1981;15:247–253. [Google Scholar]
  98. Stanley R.D., Lee D.L., Whitaker D.J. Parasites of yellowtail rockfish, Sebastes flavidus (Ayres, 1862) (Pisces: Teleostei), from the Pacific coast of North America as potential biological tags for stock identification. Can. J. Zool. 1992;70:1086–1096. [Google Scholar]
  99. Swain D.P., Hutchings J.A., Foote C.J. Environmental and genetic influences on stock identification characters. In: Cadrin S.X., Friedland K.D., Waldman J.R., editors. Stock Identification Methods: Application in Fishery Science. Elsevier; NY: 2005. pp. 45–88. [Google Scholar]
  100. Thorpe J.P., Solé-Cava A.M., Watts P.C. Exploited marine invertebrates: genetics and fisheries. Hydrobiologia. 2000;420:165–184. [Google Scholar]
  101. Thorrold S.R., Jones G.P., Hellberg M.E., Burton R.S., Swearer S.E., Neigel J.E., Morgan S.G., Warner R.R. Quantifying larval retention and connectivity in marine populations with artificial and natural markers. Bull. Mar. Sci. 2002;70:S291–S308. [Google Scholar]
  102. Timi J.T. Parasites of Argentine anchovy in the south-west Atlantic: latitudinal patterns and their use for discrimination of host populations. J. Fish. Biol. 2003;63:90–107. [Google Scholar]
  103. Timi J.T. Parasites as biological tags for stock discrimination in marine fish from South American Atlantic waters. J. Helminthol. 2007;81:107–111. doi: 10.1017/S0022149X07726561. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  104. Timi J.T., Lanfranchi A.L. The metazoan parasite communities of the Argentinean sandperch Pseudopercis semifasciata (Pisces: Perciformes) and their use to elucidate the stock structure of the host. Parasitology. 2009;136:1209–1219. doi: 10.1017/S0031182009990503. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  105. Timi J.T., Lanfranchi A.L., Etchegoin J.A. Seasonal stability and spatial variability of parasites in Brazilian sandperch Pinguipes brasilianus from the Northern Argentine Sea: evidence for stock discrimination. J. Fish. Biol. 2009;74:1206–1225. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8649.2009.02190.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  106. Varela A.I., Ritchie P.A., Smith P.J. Global genetic population structure in the commercially exploited deep-sea teleost orange roughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus) based on microsatellite DNA analyses. Fish. Res. 2013;140:83–90. [Google Scholar]
  107. Waldman J.R. Definition of stocks: an evolving concept. In: Cadrin S.X., Friedland K.D., Waldman J.R., editors. Stock Identification Methods: Application in Fishery Science. Elsevier; NY: 2005. pp. 7–16. [Google Scholar]
  108. Williams H.H., MacKenzie K., McCarthy A.M. Parasites as biological indicators of the population biology, migrations, diet, and phylogenetics of fish. Rev. Fish Biol. Fisher. 1992;2:144–176. [Google Scholar]
  109. Zischke M.T., Griffiths S.P., Tibbetts I.R., Lester R.J.G. Stock identification of wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri) in the Pacific and Indian Oceans using morphometrics and parasites. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2013;70:164–172. [Google Scholar]

Articles from International Journal for Parasitology: Parasites and Wildlife are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES