4.0 Article

Parasites of the common carp Cyprinus carpio L., 1758 (Teleostei: Cyprinidae) from water bodies of Turkey: updated checklist and review for the 1964-2014 period

Journal

TURKISH JOURNAL OF ZOOLOGY
Volume 39, Issue 4, Pages 545-554

Publisher

Tubitak Scientific & Technological Research Council Turkey
DOI: 10.3906/zoo-1401-42

Keywords

Ciliophora; Platyhelminthes; Anatolia; parasite richness

Categories

Funding

  1. Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK)
  2. Department of Science Fellowships and Grant Programs (BIDEB)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A synopsis is provided of the parasites of common carp Cyprinus carpio L. from water bodies of Turkey based on literature data from 1964 to 2014. In total, 45 studies were included in the review and these provided data from 41 water bodies, comprising 12 man-made reservoirs, 21 natural lakes, and 8 water courses. Forty-one different taxa (including molluscan Glochidium sp.) in total were recorded. Of these taxa, 2 had not been previously reviewed for Turkey, and 4 were excluded from the list because of dubious identification. The Turkish parasite fauna of common carp living under natural conditions was dominated by ciliates (Ciliophora) among the protozoans and by flatworms (Platyhelminthes) among the metazoans, and this was both in terms of occurrence on fish and across water bodies. The absence of 7 taxa from both the European and North American checklists can be explained by the location of Turkey at the frontier between Asia and Europe. Additionally, the parasite fauna of the common carp in Turkey was consistently different from that of the far eastern species' specimens. Lack of differences among water bodies in both taxon richness and composition indicates overall homogeneity, likely a result of the species' relatively long-term establishment across the region. It is suggested that management options could benefit from this level of homogeneity.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available