School of Health and Life Sciences, Teesside University, Middlesbrough TS1 3BA, United Kingdom; National Horizons Centre of Excellence in Bioscience Industry, Teesside University, Darlington DL1 1HG, United Kingdom.
School of Health and Life Sciences, Teesside University, Middlesbrough TS1 3BA, United Kingdom; National Horizons Centre of Excellence in Bioscience Industry, Teesside University, Darlington DL1 1HG, United Kingdom.
J Invertebr Pathol. 2021 Nov;186:107482. doi: 10.1016/j.jip.2020.107482. Epub 2020 Oct 20.
Invasive non-native species (INNS) pose a risk as vectors of parasitic organisms (Invasive Parasites). Introducing invasive parasites can result in ecological disturbances, leading to biodiversity loss and native species illness/mortality, but occasionally can control INNS limiting their impact. Risks to human health and the economy are also associated with INNS and invasive parasites; however, we understand little about the diversity of symbiotic organisms co-invading alongside INNS. This lack of clarity is an important aspect of the 'One Health' prerogative, which aims to bridge the gap between human, wildlife, and ecosystem health. To explore symbiont diversity associated with the invasive crustacean group (including: crab, lobster, crayfish, shrimp, amphipod, isopod, copepod, barnacle, other) (n = 323) derived from 1054 aquatic invertebrates classed as INNS across databases, we compile literature (year range 1800-2017) from the native and invasive range to provide a cumulative symbiont profile for each species. Our search indicated that 31.2% of INN crustaceans were known to hold at least one symbiont, whereby the remaining 68.8% had no documented symbionts. The symbiont list mostly consisted of helminths (27% of the known diversity) and protists (23% of the known diversity), followed by bacteria (12%) and microsporidians (12%). Carcinus maenas, the globally invasive and extremely well-studied green crab, harboured the greatest number of symbionts (n = 72). Additional screening is imperative to become more informed on invasive symbiont threats. We reveal that few studies provide truly empirical data that connect biodiversity loss with invasive parasites and suggest that dedicated studies on available systems will help to provide vital case studies. Despite the lack of empirical data, co-invasive parasites of invasive invertebrates appear capable of lowering local biodiversity, especially by causing behavioural change and mortality in native species. Alternatively, several invasive parasites appear to protect ecosystems by controlling the impact and population size of their invasive host. We provide a protocol that could be followed to explore symbiont diversity in invasive groups as part of our case studies. The consequence of limited parasite screening of INNS, in addition to the impacts invasive parasites impart on local ecologies, are explored throughout the review. We conclude in strong support of the 'One Health' prerogative and further identify a need to better explore disease in invasion systems, many of which are accountable for economic, human health and ecological diversity impacts.
入侵的非本地物种（INNS）作为寄生虫的载体构成了风险（入侵寄生虫）。引入入侵寄生虫会导致生态系统紊乱，导致生物多样性丧失和本地物种患病/死亡，但偶尔也可以控制 INNS 从而限制其影响。INNS 和入侵寄生虫也会给人类健康和经济带来风险；然而，我们对与 INNS 一起入侵的共生生物的多样性知之甚少。这种不明确性是“One Health”原则的一个重要方面，该原则旨在弥合人类、野生动物和生态系统健康之间的差距。为了探索与入侵甲壳类动物组（包括：蟹、龙虾、淡水螯虾、虾、端足目动物、等足目动物、桡足类动物、藤壶、其他）相关的共生体多样性（n=323），这些甲壳类动物来自数据库中 1054 种被归类为 INNS 的水生无脊椎动物，我们从本地和入侵范围汇编文献（1800-2017 年），为每个物种提供累积的共生体概况。我们的搜索表明，31.2%的 INN 甲壳类动物至少有一种共生体，而其余 68.8%没有记录到共生体。共生体列表主要由寄生虫（已知多样性的 27%）和原生动物（已知多样性的 23%）组成，其次是细菌（12%）和微孢子虫（12%）。全球入侵且研究极为透彻的绿蟹 Carcinus maenas 拥有最多的共生体（n=72）。进一步的筛选对于了解入侵共生体的威胁至关重要。我们发现，很少有研究提供真正的经验数据，将生物多样性的丧失与入侵寄生虫联系起来，并表明对现有系统的专门研究将有助于提供重要的案例研究。尽管缺乏经验数据，但入侵无脊椎动物的共生寄生虫似乎能够降低本地生物多样性，特别是通过改变本地物种的行为和导致其死亡。另一方面，几种入侵寄生虫似乎通过控制其入侵宿主的影响和种群大小来保护生态系统。我们提供了一种可以遵循的方案，以探索作为案例研究的一部分的入侵群体中的共生体多样性。在整个审查过程中，我们探讨了对 INNS 的寄生虫筛查有限的后果，以及入侵寄生虫对当地生态系统的影响。我们强烈支持“One Health”原则，并进一步确定需要更好地探索入侵系统中的疾病，其中许多疾病都会对经济、人类健康和生态多样性产生影响。
