title: Gyrodactylus spp. diversity in native and introduced minnow (Phoxinus phoxinus) populations: no support for "the enemy release" hypothesis.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Translocation of native species and introduction of non-native species are potentially harmful to the existing biota by introducing e.g. diseases, parasites and organisms that may negatively affect the native species. The enemy release hypothesis states that parasite species will be lost from host populations when the host is introduced into new environments.
  
  
  METHODS
  We tested the enemy release hypothesis by comparing 14 native and 29 introduced minnow (Phoxinus phoxinus) populations in Norway with regard to the ectoparasitic Gyrodactylus species community and load (on caudal fin). Here, we used a nominal logistic regression on presence/absence of Gyrodactylus spp. and a generalized linear model on the summed number of Gyrodactylus spp. on infected populations, with individual minnow heterozygosity (based on 11 microsatellites) as a covariate. In addition, a sample-based rarefaction analysis was used to test if the Gyrodactylus-species specific load differed between native and introduced minnow populations. An analysis of molecular variance was performed to test for hierarchical population structure between the two groups and to test for signals of population bottlenecks the two-phase model in the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used. To test for demographic population expansion events in the introduced minnow population, we used the kg-test under a stepwise mutation model.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The native and introduced minnow populations had similar species compositions of Gyrodactylus, lending no support to the enemy release hypothesis. The two minnow groups did not differ in the likelihood of being infected with Gyrodactylus spp. Considering only infected minnow populations it was evident that native populations had a significantly higher mean abundance of Gyrodactylus spp. than introduced populations. The results showed that homozygotic minnows had a higher Gyrodactylus spp. infection than more heterozygotic hosts. Using only infected individuals, the two minnow groups did not differ in their mean number of Gyrodactylus spp. However, a similar negative association between heterozygosity and abundance was observed in the native and introduced group. There was no evidence for demographic bottlenecks in the minnow populations, implying that introduced populations retained a high degree of genetic variation, indicating that the number of introduced minnows may have been large or that introductions have been happening repeatedly. This could partly explain the similar species composition of Gyrodactylus in the native and introduced minnow populations.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  In this study it was observed that native and introduced minnow populations did not differ in their species community of Gyrodactylus spp., lending no support to the enemy release hypothesis. A negative association between individual minnow host heterozygosity and the number of Gyrodactylus spp. was detected. Our results suggest that the enemy release hypothesis does not necessarily limit fish parasite dispersal, further emphasizing the importance of invasive fish species dispersal control.
authors.affiliation: Center for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis (CEES), Department of Biosciences, University of Oslo, P. O. Box 1066, Blindern, NO-0316, Oslo, Norway. rubenap@ibv.uio.no.
authors.forename: Ruben Alexander
authors.initials: RA
authors.lastname: Pettersen
authors.affiliation: Center for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis (CEES), Department of Biosciences, University of Oslo, P. O. Box 1066, Blindern, NO-0316, Oslo, Norway. kjartan.ostbye@ibv.uio.no.|Department of Forestry and Wildlife Management, Hedmark University College, Campus Evenstad, Elverum, NO, 2418, Norway. kjartan.ostbye@ibv.uio.no.
authors.forename: Kjartan
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Østbye
authors.affiliation: Center for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis (CEES), Department of Biosciences, University of Oslo, P. O. Box 1066, Blindern, NO-0316, Oslo, Norway. johannes.holmen@gmail.com.
authors.forename: Johannes
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Holmen
authors.affiliation: Center for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis (CEES), Department of Biosciences, University of Oslo, P. O. Box 1066, Blindern, NO-0316, Oslo, Norway. asbjorn.vollestad@ibv.uio.no.
authors.forename: Leif Asbjørn
authors.initials: LA
authors.lastname: Vøllestad
authors.affiliation: Norwegian Veterinary Institute, P.O. Box 8156, Dep. NO-0033, Oslo, Norway. tor-atle.mo@vetinst.no.
authors.forename: Tor Atle
authors.initials: TA
authors.lastname: Mo
mesh_terms: D058500:Animal Fins / Q000469:parasitology; D000818:Animals; D002590:Cestode Infections / Q000469:parasitology / Q000662:veterinary*; D003530:Cyprinidae / Q000469:parasitology*; D005393:Fish Diseases / Q000469:parasitology*; D014644:Genetic Variation; D009664:Norway; D059208:Parasite Load; D010986:Platyhelminths / Q000145:classification* / Q000235:genetics / Q000302:isolation & purification*
references.citation: Nature. 2003 Feb 6;421(6923):625-7
references.pmid: 12571594
references.citation: Ecol Lett. 2014 May;17(5):637-49
references.pmid: 24612028
references.citation: Parasitology. 2012 Sep;139(11):1493-505
references.pmid: 22814338
references.citation: Science. 2009 Apr 3;324(5923):40-1
references.pmid: 19342572
references.citation: J Evol Biol. 2012 Mar;25(3):584-90
references.pmid: 22239550
references.citation: Parasitology. 2004 Feb;128(Pt 2):169-77
references.pmid: 15030004
references.citation: Int J Parasitol. 2000 Oct;30(11):1153-8
references.pmid: 11027780
references.citation: Mol Ecol. 2009 Jul;18(13):2746-65
references.pmid: 19500255
references.citation: Adv Parasitol. 2007;64:161-376
references.pmid: 17499102
references.citation: Sci Total Environ. 2006 Oct 1;369(1-3):129-38
references.pmid: 16904736
references.citation: Nature. 2003 Feb 6;421(6923):628-30
references.pmid: 12571595
references.citation: J Parasitol. 2012 Aug;98(4):713-7
references.pmid: 22468610
references.citation: Int J Parasitol. 2010 Nov;40(13):1525-30
references.pmid: 20600073
references.citation: Bioinformatics. 2012 Oct 1;28(19):2537-9
references.pmid: 22820204
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Jan 7;111(1):302-7
references.pmid: 24367109
references.citation: J Parasitol. 1996 Jun;82(3):389-99
references.pmid: 8636841
references.citation: Immunogenetics. 2014 Jun;66(6):393-402
references.pmid: 24752816
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998 Jul 7;95(14):8119-23
references.pmid: 9653150
references.citation: Am Nat. 1993 Jun;141(6):847-65
references.pmid: 19425992
references.citation: Vet Microbiol. 2014 Sep 17;173(1-2):66-75
references.pmid: 25124447
references.citation: Trends Ecol Evol. 2005 May;20(5):212-5
references.pmid: 16701371
references.citation: J Fish Biol. 2012 Mar;80(3):713-21
references.pmid: 22380565
references.citation: Am Nat. 2002 Oct;160 Suppl 4:S9-S22
references.pmid: 18707455
references.citation: Parazitologiia. 2008 Mar-Apr;42(2):101-13
references.pmid: 18664066
references.citation: Mol Ecol. 2009 Mar;18(6):1112-23
references.pmid: 19222748
references.citation: Mol Ecol. 2012 Jul;21(14):3403-18
references.pmid: 22646281
references.citation: Genetics. 1996 Dec;144(4):2001-14
references.pmid: 8978083
references.citation: Trends Parasitol. 2008 Mar;24(3):109-11
references.pmid: 18243795
references.citation: Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 2008 Dec 15;126(3-4):171-98
references.pmid: 18783835
references.citation: Ecol Evol. 2013 Aug;3(8):2568-85
references.pmid: 24567825
references.citation: Science. 2000 May 5;288(5467):854-6
references.pmid: 10797007
references.citation: Genetics. 1992 Jun;131(2):479-91
references.pmid: 1644282
references.citation: Int J Parasitol. 2010 Oct;40(12):1455-67
references.pmid: 20595003
references.citation: Conserv Biol. 2008 Jun;22(3):521-33
references.pmid: 18577081
references.citation: Syst Parasitol. 2003 May;55(1):39-52
references.pmid: 12815215