Korean Journal of Ichthyology (한국어류학회지)

The Ichthyological Society of Korea (한국어류학회)
권호 표지

Host Species Preference of Acheilognathus signifer (Pisces: Acheilognathinae) for Spawning in Freshwater Mussels

묵납자루, Acheilognathus signifer (Pisces: Acheilognathinae)의 산란숙주조개 선호도

  • Kim, Hyeong-Su (Institute of Biodiversity Research) ;
  • Yang, Hyun (Institute of Biodiversity Research) ;
  • Park, Jong-Young (Department of Biological Science, College of Natural Sciences, Chonbuk National University)
  • 김형수 ((주)생물다양성연구소) ;
  • 양현 ((주)생물다양성연구소) ;
  • 박종영 (전북대학교 자연과학대학 생물학과)
  • Received : 2013.09.03
  • Accepted : 2013.12.14
  • Published : 2013.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Host species preference of Acheilognathus signifer for spawning in freshwater mussels was investigated at the part of the Dalcheon Stream (site 1) and the Gaedaecheon Stream (site 2) in Chungcheongbuk-do, Korea from April to June (spawning period) 2011. The spawned mussel rate of A. signifer at the study site 1 (wild condition) was 63.6% in Lamprotula leai and 2.1% in Unio douglasiae sinuolatus. It was not found in Anodnta arcaeformis flavotincta and Lanceolaria grayana. The number of eggs, larvae, or both of A. signifer at the study site 1 (wild condition) was 1~41 ($12.0{\pm}9.21$) in L. leai and 6 in U. d. sinuolatus. As a result of experiment 1, A. signifer was only spawned in L. leai with 60% of spawned mussel rate and the number of eggs, larvae, or both was 1~19 ($6.8{\pm}5.44$). According to experiment 2, A. signifer was spawned in all mussels. Spawned mussel rate of A. signifer was 75.0% in L. leai, 42.9% in U. d. sinuolatus and 21.4% in A. a. flavotincta and the number of eggs, larvae, or both was 1~35 ($13.0{\pm}8.80$) in L. leai, 1~26 ($5.2{\pm}6.92$) in U. d. sinuolatus and 2~19 ($8.6{\pm}5.64$) in A. a. flavotincta. Experiment 3 showed A. signifer was solely spawned in L. leai and the number of egg was from 2 to 10 ($6.7{\pm}4.16$). This study confirmed A. singifer is not so much generalist as specialist. We found the most preference species for spawning in the mussels by A. signifer was L. leai.

2011년 4~6월까지 충청북도 괴산군 청천면 달천 (조사지점 1)과 단양군 가대면 어상천 일대(조사지점 2)에서 묵납자루의 산란숙주조개 선호도를 실시하였다. 조사지점 1의 자연상태에서 묵납자루의 산란숙주조개 내 산란율은 곳체두드럭조개에 63.6%, 작은말조개 2.1%로 나타났고 작은대칭이와 칼조개에서 산란된 개체는 없었다. 묵납자루가 산란한 알 및 자어의 수는 곳체두드럭조개 1~41 ($12.0{\pm}9.21$)개, 작은말조개 6개였다. 실험 1의 결과 묵납자루는 곳체두드럭조개에만 산란하였고 산란율은 60%였으며, 산란한 알 및 자어의 수는 1~19 ($6.8{\pm}5.44$)개였다. 실험 2에서 묵납자루는 곳체두드럭조개, 작은말조개, 작은대칭이 모두에 산란하였고 산란율은 각각 75.0, 42.9, 21.4%였으며, 산란한 알 및 자어의 수는 각각 1~35 ($13.0{\pm}8.80$)개, 1~26 ($5.2{\pm}6.92$)개, 2~19 ($8.6{\pm}5.64$)개였다. 실험 3에서 묵납자루는 곳체두드럭조개에만 산란하였고 산란한 알은 2~10 ($6.7{\pm}4.16$)개였다. 묵납자루는 1종의 조개에만 산란하는 특이종(specialist)이라기보다는 일반종(generalist)이라고 생각되며, 곳체두드럭조개를 가장 선호하는 것으로 나타났다.

Keywords

References

  1. 국립생물자원관. 2011. 한국의 멸종위기 야생동식물 적색자료집(어류). 국립생물자원관.
  2. 김익수. 1997. 한국동식물도감 제37권 동물편(담수어류). 교육부.
  3. 김익수.박종영. 2002. 한국의 민물고기. 교학사.
  4. 김익수.최 윤.이충렬, 이용주, 김병직, 김지현. 2005. 원색 한국어류대도감. 교학사.
  5. 민덕기. 2004. 한국패류도감, 민패류연구소.
  6. 백현민. 2005. 묵납자루, Acheilognathus signifer (Cyprinidae)의 생태학적 연구. 강원대학교 박사학위논문.
  7. 백현민.송호복. 2005. 묵납자루, Acheilognathus signifer (Cyprinidae; Acheilognathinae)의 패 내 산란과 적응전략. 한국어류학회지, 17: 105-111.
  8. 송호복.권오길. 1994. 줄납자루, Acheilognathus yamatsutae (Cyprinidae)의 패류 체내 산란. 한국어류학회지, 6: 39-50.
  9. 양 현. 2004. 칼납자루 Acheilognathus koreensis와 임실납자루 A. somjinensis의 생태와 종분화. 전북대학교 박사학위논문.
  10. 환경부. 1997-2005. 제2차 전국자연환경조사 보고서, 환경부 국립환경과학원.
  11. 환경부. 2006-2011. 제3차 전국자연환경조사 보고서, 환경부 국립환경과학원.
  12. Aldridge, D.C. 1999. Development of European bitterling in the gills of freshwater mussels. Journal of Fish Biology, 54: 138-151. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1999.tb00618.x
  13. Bogutskaya, N.G. and A.M. Komelv. 2001. Some new data to morphology of Rhodeus sericeus (Cyprinidae: Acheilognathinae) and a description of a new species, Rhodeus colchicus, from West Transcaucasia. Proc. Zool. Inst., 287: 81-97.
  14. Cummins, K.W. 1962. An evaluation of some techniques for the collection and analysis of benthic samples with special on lotic waters. Amer. Midl. Nat., 67: 477-504. https://doi.org/10.2307/2422722
  15. Damme, V.D., N. Bogutskaya, R.C. Hoffimann and C. Smith. 2007. The introduction of the European bitterling (Rhodeus amarus) to west and central Europe. Fish and Fisheries, 8: 79-106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2679.2007.00239.x
  16. Duyvene De Wit, J.J. 1955. Some observations on the European bittelring (Rhodeus amarus). S. Afr. J. Wetenskap, 51: 249-251.
  17. Fukuhara, S., W. Maekawa and Y. Nagata. 1998. Comprasion of utilization of freshwater mussels for deposition of the bitterlings in three creeks of northwest Kyushu. Memoirs of Osaka Kyoiku Univ. Ser. 3, 47: 27-37. (in Japanese with English abstract)
  18. Hirai, K. 1964. Comprarative studies on ecology of four species of bitterlings in the Lake Biwa. Physiol. Ecol. Japan, 12: 72-81. (in Japanese with English abstract)
  19. Kamler, E. 1992. Early life history of fish. Chapman and Hall, London.
  20. Kani, T. 1944. Ecology of torrent-inhabiting insects. In: Furukawa, J. (ed.), Insect I. Kenkyu-sha, Tokyo, pp. 171-317. (in Japaness)
  21. Kitamura, J. 2005. Factors affecting seasonal mortality of rosy bitterling (Rhodeus ocellatus kurumeus) embryos on the gills of their host mussel. Popul. Ecol., 47: 41-51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10144-004-0201-0
  22. Kitamura, J. 2007. Reproductive ecology and host utilization of four sympatric bitterling (Acheilognthinae, Cyprinidae) in a lowland reach of the Harai River in Mie, Japan. Environ. Biol. Fish., 78: 37-55.
  23. Kitamura, J. 2008. Bitterling fishes (Cyprinidae: Acheilognathinae): current threats and conservation. Jpn. J. Ichthyol., 55: 139-144. (in Japanese)
  24. Kitamura, J., J.N. Negishi, M. Nishio, S. Sagawa, J. Akino and S. Aoki. 2009. Host mussel utilization of the Itasenpara bitterling (Acheilognathus longipinnis) in the Moo River in Himi, Japan. Ichthyol. Res., 56: 296-300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10228-008-0082-x
  25. Kondo, T., J. Yamashita and M. Kano. 1984. Breeding ecology of five species of bitterling (pisces: Cyprinidae) in a small creek. Physiol. Ecol. Japan, 21: 53-62.
  26. Mills, S.C. and J.D. Reynolds. 2002. Host species preferences by bitterling, Rhodeus sericeus, spawning in freshwater mussels and consequences for offspring survival. Animal Behaviour, 63: 1029-1036. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2001.1988
  27. Nagata, Y. and Y. Nakata. 1988. Distribution of six species of bitterlings in a creek in Fukuoka Prefecture. Jpn. J. Ichthyol., 35: 32-331.
  28. Reichard, M., H. Liu and C. Smith. 2007. The co-evolutionary relationship between bitterling fishes and freshwater mussels: insights from interspecific comparsions. Evol. Ecol. Res., 9: 239-259.
  29. Smith, C. and R.J. Wootton. 1995. The costs of parental care in teleost fishes. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 5: 7-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01103363
  30. Smith, C., J.D. Reynolds, W.J. Sutherland and P. Jurajda. 2000. Adaptive host choice and avoidance of superparasitism in the spawning decisions of bitterling (Rhodeus sericeus). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 48: 29-35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002650000212
  31. Smith, C., K. Rippon, A. Douglas and P. Jurajda. 2001. A proximate cue for oviposition site choice in the bitterling (Rhodeus sericeus). Freshw. Biol., 46: 903-911. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2427.2001.00725.x
  32. Uchida, K. 1939. The fishes of Tyosen (Korea). Part 1. Nematognathi and Eventognathi. Bull. Fish. Exp. Sta. Gov. Gener. Tyosen. 6. (in Japanese)
  33. Wootton, R.J. 1998. Ecology of teleost fishes. 2nd edn. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
  34. Zale, A.V. and R. Neves. 1982. Fish host of four species of lampsiline mussels (Mollusca: Unionidae) in Big Mocasin Creek, Virginina. Can. J. Zool., 60: 2535-2542. https://doi.org/10.1139/z82-325