한국해양학회지:바다 (The Sea:JOURNAL OF THE KOREAN SOCIETY OF OCEANOGRAPHY)

  • 제12권2호
  • /
  • Pages.112-120
  • /
  • 2007
  • /
  • 1226-2978(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2671-8820(eISSN)
한국해양학회 (The Korean Society of Oceanography)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

연어과 어류의 계군분석을 위한 기생충의 활용

Use of Parasites for Stock Analysis of Salmonid Fishes

  • 김정호 (강릉대학교 해양생명공학부)
  • Kim, Jeong-Ho (Faculty of Marine Bioscience and Technology, Kangnung National University)
  • 발행 : 2007.05.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 총설에서는 연어과 어류의 계군 분석을 위한 생물학적 표식으로서의 기생충의 유용성에 관하여 다루었다. 계군의 정의는 학자에 따라 다양하지만, 대부분은 본질적으로 서로 유사한 생물학적 특징을 가지며 타 계군과의 혼합 없이도 스스로 번식이 가능하여 일정한 규모를 유지할 수 있는 일련의 개체들의 모임을 계군으로 정의하고 있다. 이 계군을 관리하는 일은 지속적인 생산 및 소비를 위하여 매우 중요하며 특히 연어과 어류의 계군은 각국이 지속적인 자원 확보를 위하여 적극적으로 치어를 방류하고 있으며, 이는 각국의 자산으로 간주되므로 공해 상에서 계군을 구분하여야 한다. 계군을 구분하는 방법은 매우 다양하다. 인공 표식, 기생충과 같은 생물학적 표식, 이석 분석, 비늘 분석, 유전정보 분석 등의 방법이 있는데, 각각 장점과 단점이 있으며, 이 중에서 기생충과 같은 생물학적 표식은 별도의 비용이 들지 않는다는 장점이 있다. 기생충이 존재하는 수역을 감수성이 있는 어류가 통과할 때 이 기생충에 감염이 된다. 이후, 감염된 어류가 이동하여 기생충이 존재하지 않는 수역에서 포획될 경우, 이 개체가 기생충이 존재하는 지역을 통과하였음을 유추해 낼 수 있다. 따라서 이 개체는 기생충에 의해 자연히 표식되는 셈이 된다. 그러나 이 지역을 통과하지 않는 개체는 기생충에 의해 표식되지 않는다. 그러므로 이 생물학적 표식을 통해 각각의 계군을 구분할 수 있으며 이동 경로도 추적이 가능하다. 여기서는 연어과 어류 연구를 목적으로 기생충을 생물학적 표식으로 사용한 각종 예를 들었으며, 이 방법의 장점 및 단점 또한 서술하였다. 연어(Oncorhyunchus keta)는 국내에 소상하는 주된 연어과 어류이며, 북태평양 전역에 분포한다. 한국산 연어는 오호츠크해를 거쳐 북서태평양 및 베링해로 이동한 후 회유하는 것으로 생각된다. 그렇지만, 한국산 연어의 공해 상에서 분포 및 회유 경로에 대해서는 확실하게 알려지지 않은 부분이 많으며 한국산 연어 계군을 타 계군과 확실하게 구분할 수 있는 표식도 아직까지는 존재하지 않는다. 여기에서는 기생충에 관한 정보를 포함한 한국산 연어의 계군 분석에 대한 최근의 연구 결과에 관하여 마지막으로 언급하였다.

This paper reviews the use of parasites as 'biological tags' for studying stock analysis of salmonid fishes. Numerous definitions of stock concepts exist, but most of them essentially define a group of fish as having similar biological characteristics and being self-reproducing as stocks. It is important to manage fish stocks for human consumption and sustainable production and especially for salmonid fishes. Because these fry are considered as each country's property, it is necessary to identify and discriminate each fish stock in the open sea. Methods of separating fish stocks are very diverse. Artificial tags, parasites, otoliths scales and genetic characters have been used for stock analysis and each method has advantages and disadvantages. Of these parasites can be good biological tags because they are applied by nature at no cost. Parasites can be infected with susceptible host fishes when they enter into certain areas. Then if they move to the outside and are caught researchers can infer that the fish had been in the endemic area for a period of time during their life. Hence the host fish can be considered as naturally 'tagged' by parasites. However, if they do not pass the parasites-endemic. area, they will harbour no parasites. Therefore, researchers can discriminate each fish stocks and trace their migration routes with these biological tags. In this paper, several examples on the use of parasites as biological tags for studying salmonids, as well as other species, are listed. The advantages and limitations of parasites as biological tags are also discussed. Chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta), the main salmonid species migrating to Korea, is distributed all around the North Pacific. Korean chum salmon are generally thought to move to the Sea of Okhotsk, the western North Pacific and the Bering Sea. However, there is no clear information on the distribution and migration pathways of Korean chum salmon, and no markers exist for separating them from others yet. Recent Korean chum salmon stock analysis including parasites information are mentioned.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. 김기홍, 주경환, 임환종, 1990. 강원도 대포항에서 구입한 연어(Oncorhynchus keta) 및 송어(Oncorhynchus masou)의 Anisakid 유충 감염상 및 기생윤충류에 관한 조사. 한국농촌의학회지, 15: 89-96
  2. 성기백, 김진영, 박차수, 강영실, 2001. 한국 연어자원의 회유와 서식환경의 장기 변동. 한국수산자원학회지, 4: 42-50
  3. 이채성, 강수경, 성기백, 김주경, 이철호, 2006. 한국산 연어의 표지연구: CWT와 이석발안란 표지. 수산관련학회 공동학술대회 발표요지집, 226-227
  4. 정웅식, 이윤호, 김수암, 진덕희, 성기백, 2003. 유전적 형질에 의한 북태평양 연어(Oncorhynchus keta)의 계군 구분. 한국수산학회지, 36: 578-585
  5. Awakura, T., K. Nagasawa, and S. Urawa, 1995. Occurrence of Myxobolus arcticus and M neurobius (Myxozoa: Myxosporea) in masu salmon Oncorhynchus masou from Northern Japan. Sci, Rep. Hokkaido Salmon Hatchery 49: 35-40
  6. Ayvazian, S.G, T.P. Bastow, J.S. Edmonds, J. How and G.B. Nowara, 2004. Stock structure of Australian herring (Arripis georgiana) in southwestern Australia. Fish. Res. 67: 39-53 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2003.08.003
  7. Beacham, T.D. and J.R. Candy, 2005. Microsatellite analysis and stock identification of Pacific salmon using Pacific rim baselines. NPAFC Tech. Rep, 6: 48-49
  8. Begg, G.A. and J.R. Waldman, 1999. An holistic approach to fish stock identification. Fish. Res. 43: 35-44 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-7836(99)00065-X
  9. Begg, G.A., 1998. A review of stock identification of haddock, Melanogrammus aeglefinus, in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean. Mar. Fish. Rev. 60: 1-15
  10. Boje, J, F. Riget and M. Koie, 1997. Helminth parasites as biological tags in population studies of Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides (Walbaum)), in the north-west Pacific. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 54: 886-895 https://doi.org/10.1006/jmsc.1997.0214
  11. Buchmann, K., A. Uldal and H.C.K. Lyholt, 1995. A checklist of metazoan parasites from rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Acta. Vet, Scand. 36: 299-318
  12. Castro-Pampillon, J.A, M. Soto-Bua, H. Rodriguez-Diminguez, J. Mejuto-Garcia, C. Arias-Fernandez and J.M. Garcia-Estevez, 2002. Selecting parasites for use in biological tagging of the Atlantic swordfish (Xiphias gladius). Fish. Res. 59: 259-262 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-7836(02)00008-5
  13. DeVries, D.A., C.B. Grimes and M.H. Prager, 2002. Using otolith shape analysis to distinguish eastern Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean stocks of king mackerel. Fish. Res. 57: 51-62 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-7836(01)00332-0
  14. Dick, T.A. and M. Belosevic, 1981. Parasites of Arctic charr Salvelinus alpinus (Linnaeus) and their use in separating sea-run and non-migrating charr. J. Fish Biol. 18: 339-347 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1981.tb03775.x
  15. Farina, A.C., R. Duarte, J. Landa, I. Quincoces, J.A. Sanchez, 2004. Multiple stock identification approaches of anglerfish (Lophius piscatorius and L. budegassa) in western and southern European waters. ICES CM Documents, 305 pp
  16. Frimeth, J.P., 1987. A survey of the parasites ofnon-anadromous and anadromous brook charr (Salvelinus fontinalis) in the Tabusintac river, New Brunswick, Canada. Can. J. Zool. 65: 1354-1362 https://doi.org/10.1139/z87-215
  17. Fritsch, M., Y. Morizur, E. Lambert, F. Bonhomme, and B. Guinand, 2007. Assessment of sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax, L.) stock delimitation in the Bay of Biscay and the English Channel based on mark-recapture and genetic data. Fish. Res. 83: 123-132 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2006.09.002
  18. Gilbey, J., D. Knox, M. O'Sullivan and E. Verspoor, 2005. Novel DNA markers for rapid, accurate, and cost-effective discrimination ofthe continental origin of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.). ICES J. Mar. Sci. 62: 1609-1616 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icesjms.2005.07.001
  19. Hansen, M.M., E. Kenchington and E.E. Nielsen, 2001. Assigning individual fish to population using microsatellite DNA markers. Fish. Fisher. 2: 93-112 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-2960.2001.00043.x
  20. Kang, S.K., S. Kim, K. Telmer, D. Welch, J.H. Helle, Y.H. Lee and K. Nagasawa, 2003. Identification of stocks and environmental characteristics of North Pacific chum salmon, Oncorhynchus keta, by chemical analysis of otolith. NPAFC Tech. Rep. 5: 37-38
  21. Khan, R.A. and C. Tuck, 1995. Parasites as biological indicators of stocks of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) off Newfoundland, Canada. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 52: S195-S201 https://doi.org/10.1139/f95-527
  22. Kim, J.H., C.H. Lee and C.S. Lee, 2005. Preliminary studies on metazoan parasites of chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) in Korea. NPAFC-PICES joint Symposium Abstract Book. 62 pp
  23. Konovalov, S.M., 1995. Parasites as indicators of biological processes, with special reference to sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 52: S202-S212 https://doi.org/10.1139/f95-528
  24. Larsen G., W. Hemmingsen, K. MacKenzie, and D.A. Lysne, 1997. A population study of cod, Gadus morhua L., in northern Norway using otolith structure and parasite tags. Fish. Res. 32: 13-20 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-7836(97)00040-4
  25. Margolis, L., 1982. Parasitology of Pacific Salmon-an overview. In:Aspects of Parasitology, edited by E. Meerovitch, E. McGill University Press, Montreal, Canada, pp. 135-226
  26. Margolis, L., 1992. A brief history of Canadian research from 1955 to 1990 related to Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus species) on the high seas. Int. North Pacific Fish. Comm. Special Edition 20: 79 pp
  27. Margolis, L., 1998. Are naturally-occurring parasite 'tags' stable ? An appraisal from four case histories involving Pacific salmonids. NPAFC Bull. 1: 205-212
  28. MacKenzi, K., 1983. Parasites as biological tags in fish population studies. Adv. Appl. Biol. 7: 251-331
  29. MacKenzi, K. and P. Abaunza, 1998. Parasites as biological tags for stock discrimination of marine fish: a guide to procedures and methods. Fish. Res. 38: 45-56 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-7836(98)00116-7
  30. MacKenzi, K. and M. Longshaw, 1995. 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. 52: S213-S224 https://doi.org/10.1139/f95-021
  31. Matthews, B.E., 1998. An introduction to Parasitology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., pp. 11-13
  32. Melendy, J., G. McClelland and T. Hurlbut, 2005. 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. 76: 392-400 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2005.07.006
  33. Moriya, S., S. Sato, T. Azumaya, O. Suzuki, S. Urawa, A. Urano and S. Abe, 2007. Genetic stock identification of chum salmon in the Bering Sea and North Pacific Ocean using mitochondrial DNA microarray. Mar. Biotechnol. 9 (in press)
  34. Moser, M. and J. Hsieh, 1992. Biological tags for stock indentifica- tion in pacific herring Clupea harengus pallasi in California. J. Parasitol. 78: 54-60 https://doi.org/10.2307/3283685
  35. Nagasawa, K., S. Urawa and T. Awakura, 1987. A checklist and bibliography of parasites of salmonids in Japan. Sci. Rep. Hokkaido Salmon Hatchery 41: 1-75
  36. NPAFC, 2004. NPAFC statistical handbook and historical data., http://www.npafc.org/new /publications/Statistical%20Yearbook/Data/Historical%20yearly/yearlypage.htm
  37. Ogura, M., 1994. Migratory behavior of Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) in the open sea. Bull. Nat. Res. lnst. Far Seas Fish. 31: 1-139 (in Japanese with English summary)
  38. Oliva, M., E, 2001. Metazoan parasites of Macruronus magellanicus from southem Chile as biological tags. J. Fish Biol. 58: 1617-1622 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2001.tb02316.x
  39. Oliva, M.E. and I. Bailon, 2002. Metazoan parasites of the Chilean hake Merluccius gayi gayi as a tool for stock discrimination. Fish. Res. 56: 313-320 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-7836(01)00329-0
  40. Oliva, M.E. and M., T. Gonzales, 2004. Metazoan parasites of Sebastes capensis from two localities in northern Chile as tools for stock identification. J. Fish Biol. 64: 170-175 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2004.00295.x
  41. Ovenden, J.R., 1990. Mitochondrial DNA and marine stock assessment: a review. Aust. J. Mar. Freshwater Res. 41: 835-853 https://doi.org/10.1071/MF9900835
  42. Robichaud, D. and G.A. Rose, 2004. Migratory behavior and range in Atlantic cod: inference from a century of tagging. Fish. Fisher. 5: 185-214 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2679.2004.00141.x
  43. Rooker, J.R., D.H. Secor, V.S. Zdanowicz, G.D. Metrio and L.O. Relini, 2003. Identification of Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) stocks from putative nurseries using otolith chemistry. Fish. Oceanogr. 12: 75-84 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2419.2003.00223.x
  44. Sanchez-Lamadrid, A., 2001. Effectiveness of four methods for tagging juveniles of farm-reared gilthead sea bream, Sparus aurata, L. Fish. Manag. Ecol. 8: 271-278 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2400.2001.00249.x
  45. Salo, E.O., 1991. Life history of chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta). In: Pacific salmon life histories, edited by Groot, C. and L. Margolis, University of British Columbia Press. Vancouver, Canada. pp. 231-309
  46. Sato, S., H. Kojima, J. Ando, H. Ando, R.L. Wilmot, L.W Seeb, V. Efremov, L. LeClair, W. Buchholz, D.H. Jin, S. Urawa, M. Kaeriyama, A. Urano and S. Abe, 2004. Genetic population structure of Chum salmon in the Pacific rim inferred from mitochondrial DNA sequence variation. Environ. Biol. Fishes 69: 37-50 https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EBFI.0000022881.90237.aa
  47. Schonhuth, S., Y. Alvarez, V. Rico, J.A. Gonzalez, J.I. Santana, E. Gouveia, J.M. Lorenzo and J.M. Bautista, 2005. Molecular identification and biometric analysis of Macaronesian archipelago stocks of Beryx splendens. Fish. Res. 73: 299-309 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2005.01.017
  48. Scholz, T., L. Euzet and F. Moravec, 1998. Taxonomic status of Pelichnibothrium speciosum Monticelli, 1889(Cestoda: Tetraphyllidea), a mysterious parasite of A lepisaurusferox Lowe (Teleostei:Alepisauridae) and Prionace glauca (L.)(Euselachii: Carcharinidae). Syst. Parasitol. 41: 1-8 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006091102174
  49. Seeb, L. W. and P.A. Crane, 1999. Allozymes and mitochondrial DNA discriminate Asian and North American populations of chum salmon in mixed-stock fisheries along the south coast of the Alaska Peninsula. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 128: 88-103 https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8659(1999)128<0088:AAMDDA>2.0.CO;2
  50. Sohn, D.W., S.K. Kang and S.A. Kim, 2005. Stock identification of chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) using trace elements in otoliths. J. Oceanogr. 61: 305-312 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10872-005-0041-3
  51. Speare, P., 1995. Parasites as biological tags for sailfish Istiophorus platypterus from east coast Australian waters. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 118: 43-50 https://doi.org/10.3354/meps118043
  52. Swan, S.C., A.J. Geffen, B. Morales-Nin, J.D.M. Gordon, T. Shimmield, T. Sawyer and E. Massuti, 2006. Otolith Chemistry: An aid to stock separation of Helicolenus dactylopterus (bluemouth) and Merluccius merluccius (European hake) in the Northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 63: 504-513 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icesjms.2005.08.012
  53. Urawa, S., L. Harrell, C.W. Mahnken, and K. Myers, 2006. Geographical distribution and seasonal occurrence of Myxobolus kisutchi (Myxozoa: Myxosporea) in the central nerve tissues of chinook and coho salmon in the Columbia river and its vicinities. Bull. Nat. Salmon Res. Center 8: 1-7
  54. Urawa, S., M. Kawana, G Anma, Y. Kamei, T. Shoji, M. Fukuwaka, K.M. Munk, K.W. Myers and E.V. Farley Jr., 2000. Geographic origin ofhigh-seas chum salmon determined by genetic and thermal otolith markers. NPAFC Tech. Rep. 2: 283-290
  55. Urawa, S. and K. Nagasawa, 1995. Prevalence of Myxobolus arcticus (Myxozoa: Myxosporea) in five species of Pacific Salmon in the North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea. Sci. Rep. Hokkaido Salmon Hatchery 49: 11-19
  56. Urawa, S., K. Nagasawa, L. Margolis and A. Moles, 1998. Stock identification of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the north Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea by parasite tags. NPAFC Bull. 1: 199-204
  57. Waldman, J.R., 1999. The importance of comparative studies in stock analysis. Fish. Res. 43: 237-246 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-7836(99)00075-2
  58. Welsh, S.A., A.W. Kahnle, B.A. Versak, and R.J. Latour, 2003. Use of tag data to compare growth rates of Atlantic coast striped bass stocks. Fish. Manag. Ecol. 10: 289-294 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2400.2003.00362.x