Next Article in Journal
Dietary 25-Hydroxycholecalciferol Supplementation as a Vitamin D3 Substitute Improves Performance, Egg Quality, Blood Indexes, Jejunal Morphology, and Tibia Quality in Late-Phase Laying Hens
Previous Article in Journal
Effect of Day Length on Growth and Gonadal Development in Meishan Male Pigs
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 14
Issue 6
10.3390/ani14060877
animals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

From Microscale Interactions to Macroscale Patterns in Copepod–Crinoid Symbiosis

by
Oksana A. Korzhavina
1,
Natalia V. Gubareva
2,
Andrey V. Kitashov
1,2,
Temir A. Britayev
3 and
Viatcheslav N. Ivanenko
1,2,*
1
Department of Invertebrate Zoology, Biological Faculty, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow 119991, Russia
2
Faculty of Biology, Shenzhen MSU-BIT University, Shenzhen 518115, China
3
A.N. Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution, Russian Academy of Science, Moscow 129164, Russia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2024, 14(6), 877; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14060877
Submission received: 4 December 2023 / Revised: 18 February 2024 / Accepted: 11 March 2024 / Published: 13 March 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Aquatic Animals)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Crinoids, a class of echinoderms, engage in diverse symbiotic relationships with copepod crustaceans, but our understanding of these interactions remains limited. A review of the literature reveals 163 recorded instances involving 39 copepod species in 6 families associated with 33 species of Comatulida. These associations span 5 of the 12 ecoregions of the World Ocean, with the highest diversity of both symbionts and hosts being noted in the Central and Western Indo-Pacific. Many fewer copepod–crinoid associations have been documented in the Atlantic. Most of these copepods are ectosymbionts, with some instances of endosymbiosis. The genera Collocheres Canu, 1893 and Pseudanthessius Claus, 1889 are prominent among them, and the host family Comatulidae exhibits the most diverse range of copepod associations. Current records cover only 5% of the potential crinoid host diversity, highlighting the need for further research.

Abstract

Crinoids (Echinodermata) exhibit unique morphological and behavioral characteristics that facilitate a wide range of symbiotic relationships with diverse organisms. Our comprehension of their interactions with microscopic copepod crustaceans is, however, still in a nascent and fragmented state. Here, we review and discuss the 166 literature records to date in which a total of 39 copepod species in 6 families have been reported in association with 33 species of the crinoid order Comatulida. Many of these associations have been reported just once. The respective localities cover 5 of the World Ocean’s 12 ecoregions, with a notable concentration of both host and symbiont diversity in the Central and Western Indo-Pacific. In contrast, the documentation of copepod–crinoid associations in the Atlantic appears markedly limited. Copepods have been found predominantly in ectosymbiotic relationships with crinoids, with a lower incidence of endosymbiosis. Copepods of the genera Collocheres Canu, 1893 and Pseudanthessius Claus, 1889 are particularly prominent in the list, and the comatulid family Comatulidae displays the most diverse assortment of copepod associations. The current scope of knowledge encompasses a mere 5% of the potential crinoid host diversity, underscoring the need for more extensive research in this area.

1. Introduction

The echinoderm class Crinoidea is a diverse and enduring clade with a fossil record stretching back nearly half a billion years [1]. Its modern-day diversity is predominantly found within the order Comatulida, which currently comprises 671 species [2,3]. These crinoids, characterized by limited motility, rudimentary self-cleaning mechanisms, and an absence of saponin secretions, provide a substrate suitable for a variety of vertebrate and invertebrate organisms [4,5]. While direct predation on crinoids is uncommon, their anatomical design—comprising mobile arms, pinnules, and cirri—and their unique filter-feeding method, whereby food particles travel conspicuously along open ambulacral grooves, is conducive to a plethora of symbionts [5,6,7]. The symbiotic taxa often found in association with crinoids include copepod, decapod and thecostracan crustaceans, ophiuroids, fish gastropods, myzostomes, polychaetes, etc. [8,9,10,11,12].
In the history of marine biology, a sustained interest in the relationships between crinoids and their symbiotic partners has long been evident. Besides studies devoted to single taxonomic groups, investigations of the entire crinoid symbiont community have been conducted in various coastal ecosystems around the world, notably in the Bay of Bengal [13], the Red Sea [9], the Marshall Islands [14], the Maldives Archipelago [15], Hong Kong [16], the Great Barrier Reef [6], Taiwan [17], New Guinea [7], Japan [18], South Africa [19], Vietnam [5,20] and North Sulawesi [21]. Such investigations have consistently emphasized the prevalence of specialized fauna involved in symbiotic associations with crinoids. However, because of doubts about the accuracy of species identification, prudence is necessary in interpreting these findings. Furthermore, a conspicuous gap in data persists regarding the undoubtedly diverse and ecologically important, yet insufficiently studied, microscopic symbionts of crinoids, such as myzostomids and copepods [22,23,24].
Copepods play a significant, though still insufficiently explored, role in a wide range of ecological interactions within marine ecosystems [25,26,27,28]. Their symbiotic relationships with various echinoderm species taxa in diverse marine environments underscore their remarkable ecological adaptability and highlights the intricate network of biotic interactions in which copepods take part. On echinoderms, copepods of various families have been observed in association with Crinoidea (feather stars), Asteroidea (sea stars), Echinoidea (sea urchins), Holothuroidea (sea cucumbers), and Ophiuroidea (brittle stars) [29,30,31,32,33,34,35]. The investigation of these interactions not only reveals the ecological significance of copepods but also contributes to a deeper understanding of the evolutionary mechanisms that underlie symbiosis within marine ecosystems [28,31].
This study is a component of a broader project aimed at elucidating patterns and assessing the depth of understanding pertaining to copepod symbionts found in association with various invertebrates, with a particular focus on echinoderms, sponges, and corals [36,37,38,39,40]. Through an exhaustive analysis and synthesis, we aspire to offer a holistic view of these relationships, focusing on their ecological, evolutionary, and taxonomic dimensions, thereby enhancing our comprehensive understanding of marine symbiotic systems and the pivotal roles that copepods play in them.

2. Materials and Methods

We developed a comprehensive Microsoft Access database to meticulously analyze the symbiotic interactions between copepods and crinoids. This database comprises four tables—‘Hosts’, ‘Symbionts’, ‘Sites’, and ‘Publications’—which collectively merge into a comprehensive ‘Literature Records’ table (Table 1, Table A1 and Table S1). Adhering to the approaches set by the World Register of Marine Species [41], this database provides a thorough record of the taxonomic classification of both the hosts and symbionts. It also incorporates a broad spectrum of meticulously completed data, including detailed information on symbiotic relationships, geographical locations, sampling depths, and timestamps in accordance with the Darwin Core data standards [42] (Table S2 for further details). To ensure consistency and accuracy in taxonomic nomenclature in the database, we employed the ‘Taxon Match’ tool in WoRMS, crucial in handling the evolving taxonomy of the host crinoids. The classification of oceanic ecoregions followed the classification by Spalding [43]. We do not endorse the recently proposed changes in the taxonomic status changes to the order Poecilostomatoida, as we believe this topic warrants further investigation [44,45]. Spatial data were processed by extracting the geographical coordinates for each sampling location from the original literature and subsequently georeferencing them. Visualization of the geographic data points was achieved using the digital mapping platforms Google Maps and RStudio Version 1.2. To visualize the data and generate plots, we first employed Rstudio version 1.2.5001, harnessing the capabilities of various packages such as tidyverse [46], dplyr [47], ggplot2 [48], ggExtra [49], ggpubr [50], gridExtra [51], magrittr [52], maps [53], stringr [54], and RcolorBrewer [55], and then crafted the final graphical representations using Adobe Photoshop CC.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. The History of Research

Over the past century, the study of copepod symbionts associated with crinoids has resulted in the publication of 24 scientific articles (Table 1) documenting symbiotic interactions between copepods and crinoids (Figure 1). The gathering of taxonomic knowledge about copepod symbionts has been remarkably slower than the trajectory of taxonomic coverage might suggest. This discrepancy can be attributed to the inherent challenges associated with collecting microscopic symbionts residing within galls and internal organs in addition to those inhabiting the external surfaces of crinoids.
The advancement of SCUBA diving techniques for sampling shallow-water environments, which began in the 1950s, facilitated the gathering of 157 records documenting the presence of copepods living in association with shallow-water crinoids. Over the past decade, however, there has been a noticeable decline in such research activity. Few works have focused on morphological descriptions, with some providing brief comments on the zoogeographical aspects and relationships between copepods and their hosts. This trend underscores the existence of numerous unexplored facets in the symbiotic relationship between copepods and crinoids, particularly concerning the nature of the symbiosis and its implications for both partners.

3.2. Sampling Methods and Challenges

The choice of methodology is inevitably linked to the type of symbiotic interaction found. Specimens isolated via washing are consistently categorized as ectosymbiotic, with descriptions typically lacking details of the precise location on the host. On the contrary, specimens isolated via copepod dissection are invariably classified as endosymbiotic, and precise information about their location in the host is typically given, e.g., within the intestinal tract (Grainger 1950 [59,60,61,62,70], within the galls [64], or the coelom [59]. The significant methodological influence on the types of copepods detected suggests that the spectrum of endosymbiotic copepods associated with crinoids remains incompletely explored [10].
In the study of copepod–crinoid symbiosis, dissection has been relatively infrequent, limited to 11 instances marked as endosymbionts (Table A1 and Table S1). The prevailing methodology for copepod identification involves the use of a 5% ethanol solution to wash the crinoid hosts. This approach, although efficient and capable of recovering a significant diversity of microsymbionts, presents challenges when conducting quantitative assessments. This method has nonetheless provided the majority (155) of published observations related to copepods on crinoids, powerfully shaping our comprehension of copepod–host relationships. Consequently, further research is imperative to ascertain the precise localization of the majority of ectosymbionts.
Research into copepod–crinoid symbioses faces significant challenges, particularly the difficulty of collecting loosely attached external symbionts from deep-sea crinoids. This problem is compounded by the current state of knowledge about microscopic copepods residing in or on crinoids and the lack of an integrative approach to their systematics, especially regarding the application of molecular methodologies [36,78]. Much of the existing data are derived from faunistic or exploratory studies, which, while inevitable in the initial phase of study of researching any taxonomic group, constrain the breadth and depth of understanding.

3.3. Diversity and Taxonomy of Symbiotic Copepods

Our literature review uncovered 166 instances involving 39 copepod species representing 6 families in association with 33 species of the crinoid order Comatulida. Intimate symbiotic associations have been identified among members of three orders of copepods—Cyclopoida, Poecilostomatoida, and Siphonostomatoida—and various comatulids (Table 2 and Table 3 and Figure 2), constituting more than 5% of the known diversity within the order.
The orders Poecilostomatoida and Siphonostomatoida display parallel trends in their frequency of occurrence and the spectrum of crinoid taxa that they are associated with (Table 2). A particularly broad spectrum of families and genera of Poecilostomatoida are involved with crinoids, with 82 instances of such associations having been reported to date. This points towards the need for more in-depth exploration of their symbiotic links with crinoids, which may turn out to be more elaborate than those of other copepod orders. The order Siphonostomatoida, including 19 species with known crinoid associations, also shows a heightened level of specialization.
Among the 95 families in the order Cyclopoida, only members of the Enterognathidae have been found in crinoids. Four of the seven known species in this family have been found to be associated with a total of seven species of feather star (Table 2). The number of literature records has varied among these four (mean 2.75, SE 0.85), and half of them (two species) have only a single known host.
The order Poecilostomatoida is predominantly represented by seven species of Pseudanthessiidae, which are associated with a total of 15 species of feather star (Table 2). This family is notable for its high number of literature records per species (mean 13.57, SE 5.03), and two of them (Pseudanthessius rostellatus Humes, Ho, 1970 and P. planus Kim, 2007) appear at present to associated with a single host species (Table A1).
The order Siphonostomatoida is represented by only one family, Asterocheridae; 19 of its species are associated with 17 species of crinoids (Table 2). The number of literature records per species (mean 3.8, SE 1.17) varies considerably. A substantial proportion of crinoid-associated asterocherids (63.16%) have only a single known host species, suggesting a trend towards species-specific symbiosis.
Despite the diversity of invertebrate-associated copepods within the large families Asterocheridae, Rhynchomolgidae, and Pseudanthessiidae, only a small fraction of each are found to be in association with crinoids—7% of 271 species, 2.5% of 270 species, and 5% of 61 species, respectively. These data highlight the potential for multiple evolutionary transitions between host invertebrates (host switching), as well as the insufficient investigation into the diversity and phylogeny of these symbiotic copepod families.

3.4. Specialization in Copepod–Crinoid Symbiosis

The examination of morphological adaptations in copepods, particularly those engaged in endosymbiotic relationships with crinoids, reveals significant deviations from a typical crustacean morphology (Figure 2). Among the present copepods, this phenomenon is especially notable in the cyclopoid family Enterognathidae, which is predominantly associated with crinoids and is represented by such genera as Enterognathus Giesbrecht, 1900 (Figure 2a) and Parenterognathus Ohtsuka, Kitazawa & Boxshall, 2010 (Figure 2b). Descriptions of various endosymbiotic or gall-inducing copepods have shown that endosymbiosis leads to considerable morphological changes in the copepods (Figure 2). In the case of Enterognathidae, these include a swollen, vermiform body with reduced segmentation and sclerotization, obscured demarcation between the prosome and urosome, and the diminution or complete absence of antennae and maxillipeds. These modifications of Enterognathidae are markedly more pronounced compared to those of other crinoid-dwelling copepods, but are nonetheless an extreme form of those observed in members of the family Lamippidae (Cyclopoida), obligate symbionts of octocorals [38,39].
The order Comatulida encompasses a diverse array of confirmed crinoid hosts for copepods, including 8 families, 21 genera, and 33 species, as detailed in Table 3 and Table S1. The family Comatulidae is a prominent host group for symbiotic copepods. Only 16% of its 102 species are known to serve as hosts for copepods; nonetheless, feather stars of this family are involved in half of all recorded copepod findings from crinoids (81 out of 166), with half of all known crinoid-symbiont copepod species (20 out of 40) as their partners (Table 3). The family Antedonidae, however, despite its total diversity (151 species), boasts a very small number of confirmed symbiotic relationships with copepods. These apparent differences among crinoid families in the prevalence of symbiotic relationships with copepods might reflect an uneven distribution of research efforts, but they also underscore the potential influence of complex ecological and evolutionary factors, including selectivity, that may warrant further investigation.
The degree of host specificity exhibited by various copepod species in their interactions with crinoids ranges from highly specific to more flexible (Figure 3). There are 20 species of single-species-specific symbionts, 61% of the total, as opposed to 13 species (39%) associated with a variety of hosts. For example, Pseudanthessius major Stock, 1967 and P. minor Stock, 1967 have multiple host species (eight and four, respectively) and host genera (seven and four, respectively), while Collocheres uncinatus Stock, 1966 is associated with three host families: Colobometridae, Comatulidae, and Himerometridae. The different degrees of host specificity are likely indicative of diverse trajectories in the evolutionary ecology of these copepods.
A restricted number of host species is typically linked to the evolution of specific adaptive traits. This is exemplified by Pseudanthessius angularis Humes, Ho, 1970, P. comanthi Humes, 1972 (Figure 2f), and P. madrasensis Reddiah, 1968, which are characterized by the development of prominent egg sacs in females, a feature commonly observed in symbiotic copepod species that distinguishes them from such species as P. major and P. minor. Additionally, Enterognathus comatulae Giesbrecht, 1900 and E. lateripes Stock, 1966 display significant morphological adaptations, including a vermiform body with inflated, rounded body segments and fringed swimming appendages.
The single-host-specific Parenterognathus troglodytes Ohtsuka, Kitazawa, Box-shall, 2010 exhibits a more pronounced degree of body modification than its counterparts. Distinct adaptations are also evident in P. planus Kim I.H., 2007 and P. rostellatus Humes & Ho, 1970, including broader and rounder thoracic segments in the former and an abundance of long setae on the antennae and urosome in the latter. Kelleria gradata Stock, 1967 (Figure 2e), another species-specific symbiont, has elongated setae, particularly on the swimming legs, and expanded thoracic segments, a feature also observed in Critomolgus fishelsoni (Stock, 1967) (Figure 2c) and Doridicola patulus (Humes, 1959) (Figure 2d).
Any attempt at a comprehensive comparative analysis of these copepods’ morphological adaptions will face many challenges, primarily due to variations in the depth of sampling, taxonomic precision, and accuracy in species identification. Moreover, our understanding of host specificity is constrained by the fragmentary nature of the available data. This is true for the majority of copepods found associated with invertebrates, as noted by Ivanenko [36].

3.5. Distribution of Crinoid-Associated Copepods

Copepods engaged in symbiosis with crinoids are distributed across a wide range of ecosystems, extending from tropical to temperate latitudes in both the Western and Eastern hemispheres (Figure 4). Observations have been concentrated predominantly in the tropical zones of both hemispheres, with comparatively few data originating from the temperate latitudes. Symbiotic interactions of this sort have been documented in 5 of the 12 marine ecoregions, delineated by Spalding [43], with the Central and Western Indo-Pacific being the richest in terms of taxonomic diversity (Table 4).
Taking Figure 4 at face value, the biodiversity hotspots for these organisms include Madagascar, Australia, and the Indo-West Pacific archipelagos, with notable concentrations in northern Madagascar, the Moluccas of Indonesia, and New Caledonia. These data were largely obtained from fieldwork conducted by Prof. Arthur Humes [79]. Several species of symbiotic copepods, namely Collocheres prionotus Humes, 1990, C. uncinatus, Pseudanthessius madrasensis Reddiah, 1968, and P. major, alongside host crinoids such as Capillaster multiradiatus (Linnaeus, 1758) and Stephanometra indica (Smith, 1876), show a pan-Indo-Pacific distribution (Table A1). The heightened diversity observed in regions like Indonesia and Madagascar is a result of intensive sampling efforts there, suggesting that further research could reveal additional species elsewhere. The temperate North Pacific and North Atlantic regions are markedly less studied in this respect, with only rare findings of the endoparasitic Enterognathus comatulae [59,62]. Species such as Collocheres comanthiphilus, Pseudanthessius major, and Glyptocheres extrusus Humes, 1987 are of particular interest due to their widespread distribution among multiple Indo-Pacific sites [22,58,73]. Additionally, the cosmopolitan presence of the scarcely documented genus Enterognathus, encompassing the northeast Atlantic, the Red Sea, and Japanese waters, presents a compelling case for further investigation (Table A1).
The paucity of data in certain geographical areas can be attributed to either the absence of copepod populations or to the lack of extensive research in these locales. The distribution pattern of existing data may reflect the habitat preferences inherent to copepod species, as well as highlight areas of specific interest within the research community. This pattern underscores the critical need for enhanced research efforts in underexplored regions to attain a holistic understanding of the global distribution patterns of these marine symbionts.

3.6. Bathymetric Distribution

An analysis of the depth data (Table A1) may offer an insight into the habitats in which symbiotic partnerships between copepods and crinoids have been established. The high concentration of relevant findings within the upper 50 m or so (mostly the upper 25 m), in contrast to the rarity of finds in the deep sea, has two possible explanations: a real preference for establishing these symbiotic relationships in shallow water, or a research bias that has focused on sampling in more accessible, shallower waters.
An obvious connection is observed between the known bathymetric distribution of the associated copepods and the preferred habitats of their host crinoids in the order Comatulida (Figure 5). The shared ecological circumstances in shallower marine zones may have played a crucial role in facilitating, establishing, and maintaining these symbiotic relationships, resulting in a long co-evolutionary relationship. The presence of symbiotic copepods in deeper waters, albeit much less frequently documented, opens avenues for further exploration into the adaptive capabilities and ecological breadth of these symbiotic copepods. The discovery of the copepod Parenterognathus troglodytes in a bathyal crinoid shows that the copepods themselves are adaptable to life at depth.
Differences are evident in the bathymetric distribution of symbiotic copepods belonging to different orders (Table A1, Figure 5). The cyclopoids are represented by a single genus that favors relatively shallow waters, mostly around 20 m deep. In contrast, the crinoid-associated poecilostomatoids inhabit a greater range of depths, namely 10 m–40 m and below. While the crinoid-associated siphonostomatoids also occur at various depths, their range is narrower than that of the poecilostomatoids and is focused at around depths of 10 m. Certain copepod genera, such as Collocheres and Enterognathus, appear to inhabit a very narrow depth range. Outlying data points in Figure 5, particularly for poecilostomatoids, may signal the presence of rare species that prefer significantly deeper waters than most.

4. Conclusions

This series of conclusions reached here are only tentative, tempered by the recognition of substantial gaps in the existing body of knowledge. These gaps result from disparities in the depth and scope of studies, variations in taxonomic precision, and inconsistencies in the identification of symbiotic taxa. The exploration of copepod–crinoid symbioses, representing a substantial yet largely uncharted domain of scientific inquiry, faces notable challenges including a prevailing research bias towards macro-symbionts, inherent difficulties in the collection and analysis of micro-symbiont data, and the still nascent stage of research in this field. The enhancement and standardization of research methodologies are imperative and must be specially tailored to the study of marine invertebrates’ relationships with microscopic symbionts. There is a need for more comprehensive and in-depth research focused on microscopic crustaceans, using robust and innovative methodology [27,80].
Current knowledge in the field of copepod–crinoid symbiosis is based on only a fraction—approximately 5%—of the hypothesized diversity of crinoid hosts. The preliminary calculations conducted by us, based on the observed diversity of copepods associated with crinoids and relying solely on morphological studies, suggest that a minimum of 600 species of crinoid-associated copepods remain to be described. The application of molecular methods, which in other taxa had considerable success in revealing species diversity that had previously gone unrecognized at the morphological level, may be expected to exponentially increase these preliminary estimates [36,78]. Such approaches are essential for fully unraveling the complexities and nuances of symbiotic relationships in marine ecosystems.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ani14060877/s1, Table S1: Crinoids as hosts of copepod crustaceans; Table S2: Description of the dataset with specific information relative to column names, description, units, and attribute type.

Author Contributions

Methodology, V.N.I.; Software, O.A.K.; Formal analysis, O.A.K. and V.N.I.; Investigation, O.A.K., N.V.G., T.A.B. and V.N.I.; Resources, O.A.K. and T.A.B.; Data curation, O.A.K. and V.N.I.; Writing—original draft, O.A.K., N.V.G., T.A.B. and V.N.I.; Writing—review & editing, O.A.K., T.A.B., A.V.K. and V.N.I.; Visualization, O.A.K.; Supervision, V.N.I.; Project administration, V.N.I.; Funding acquisition, A.V.K. and V.N.I. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Russian Science Foundation Grant No. 22-24-00365.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This review article refrains from presenting any original research involving human or animal subjects carried out by its authors.

Informed Consent Statement

No human participants were involved in this study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are openly available at https://doi.org/10.15468/p2dsmy (accessed on 10 March 2024).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funder had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Appendix A

Table A1. Copepod crustaceans recorded as being associated with crinoids (see also Table S1. Crinoids as hosts of copepod crustaceans).
Table A1. Copepod crustaceans recorded as being associated with crinoids (see also Table S1. Crinoids as hosts of copepod crustaceans).
CopepodHost Species: Valid Name and [as in Original Record]Host Family Abbreviation *Symbiosis
Nature
Abbreviation **		Collection Site Abbreviation ***Depth (m)Reference
Cyclopoida
Enterognathidae
Enterognathus comatulae Giesbrecht, 1900Antedon bifida (Pennant, 1777)AenGB, IE [60]
Enterognathus comatulae Giesbrecht, 1900Antedon mediterranea (Lamarck, 1816)AenFR, IT [59,61,62]
Enterognathus inabai Ohtsuka, Shimomura, Kitazawa, 2012Lamprometra sp.MenJP46.7–46.9[64]
Entherognathus lateripes Stock, 1966Decametra chadwicki (Clark, 1911)ColenIL20[71]
Entherognathus lateripes Stock, 1966Oligometra serripinna (Carpenter, 1811)ColenIL20[71]
Entherognathus lateripes Stock, 1966Heterometra savignii (Müller, 1841) [as Heterometra savignyi (Müller, 1841)]HenIL10[71]
Parenterognathus troglodytes Ohtsuka, Kitazawa, Boxshall, 2010Glyptometra crassa (Clark, 1912)ChenJP775, 780.8–787.1[63]
Poecilostomatoida
Kelleriidae
Kelleria gradata Stock, 1967Heterometra savignii (Müller, 1841)
[as Heterometra savignyi (Müller, 1841)]		HecIL15[72]
Pseudanthessiidae
Pseudanthessius angularis Humes, Ho, 1970Stephanometra indica (Smith, 1876)
[as Stephanometra spicata (Carpenter, 1881)]		MecMG1[75]
Pseudanthessius angularis Humes, Ho, 1970Anneissia bennetti (Müller, 1841)
[as Comanthus bennetti (Müller, 1841)]		MecMG2, 6[75]
Pseudanthessius comanthi Humes, 1972Comanthus wahlbergii (Müller, 1843)ComecMH4, 8[53]
Pseudanthessius comanthi Humes, 1972Oxycomanthus bennetti (Müller, 1841)
[as Comanthus bennetti (Müller, 1841)]		ComecID25[22]
Pseudanthessius comanthi Humes, 1972Heterometra savignii (Müller, 1841)
[as Heterometra savignyi (Müller, 1841)]		ComecAU, ID, PH2, 3, 4, 10, 12, 40[22]
Pseudanthessius madrasensis Reddiah, 1968Comatulida ecIN [69]
Pseudanthessius madrasensis Reddiah, 1968Tropiometra afra (Hartlaub, 1890)TecNC1.5, 2, 3[58]
Pseudanthessius madrasensis Reddiah, 1968Tropiometra carinata (Lamarck, 1816)TecMG0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 15[75]
Pseudanthessius major Stock, 1967Cenometra emendatrix (Bell, 1892)ColecMG10, 20[72]
Pseudanthessius major Stock, 1967Heterometra africana (Clark, 1911)HecMG17, 18, 25, 29, 34[72]
Pseudanthessius major Stock, 1967Heterometra savignii (Müller, 1841)
[as Heterometra savignyi (Müller, 1841)]		HecIL10, 15[72]
Pseudanthessius major Stock, 1967Himerometra robustipinna (Carpenter, 1881)
[as Himerometra magnipinna Clark, 1908]		HecNC1[58]
Pseudanthessius major Stock, 1967Dichrometra flagellata (Müller, 1841)
[as Dichrometra afra Clark, 1912]		MecMG1, 2, 6[72]
Pseudanthessius major Stock, 1967Lamprometra palmata (Müller, 1841)
[as Lamprometra klunzingeri (Hartlaub, 1890)]		MecMG1, 13[72]
Pseudanthessius major Stock, 1967Liparometra sp.MecMG15, 23, 27, 35[72]
Pseudanthessius major Stock, 1967Stephanometra indica (Smith, 1876)
[as Stephanometra spicata (Carpenter, 1881)]		MecMG, NC2, 3, 13, 17[58,72]
Pseudanthessius minor Stock, 1967Heterometra africana (Clark, 1911)HecMG18[75]
Pseudanthessius minor Stock, 1967Dichrometra flagellata (Müller, 1841)
[as Dichrometra afra Clark, 1912]		MecMG2[75]
Pseudanthessius minor Stock, 1967Lamprometra palmata (Müller, 1841)
[as Lamprometra klunzingeri (Hartlaub, 1890)]		MecIL, MG0.5, 13[75]
Pseudanthessius minor Stock, 1967Liparometra sp.MecMG15, 23, 27, 35[75]
Pseudanthessius planus Kim, 2007Himerometra robustipinna (Carpenter, 1881)
[as Himerometra magnipinna Clark, 1908]		HecID2[33]
Pseudanthessius rostellatus Humes, Ho, 1970Phanogenia distincta (Carpenter, 1888)
[as Comaster distinctus (Carpenter, 1888)]		ComecMG47[75]
Rhynchomolgidae
Critomolgus fishelsoni (Stock, 1967)Oligometra serripinna (Carpenter, 1811)ColecIL20[73]
Doridicola patulus (Humes, 1959)Cenometra emendatrix (Bell, 1892)ColecMG20[76]
Doridicola venustus (Humes, 1958)Cenometra emendatrix (Bell, 1892)ColecMG20[76]
Synapticolidae
Scambicornus pillaii Stock, 1983 (Figure 2g)Capillaster multiradiatus (Linnaeus, 1758)
[as Capillaster multiradiata (Linnaeus, 1758)]		ComecIL1[72]
Siphonostomatoida
Asterocheridae
Asterocheres crinoidicola Humes, 2000 (Figure 2h)Comatulida ecJM [68]
Asterocheres crinoidicola Humes, 2000Davidaster rubiginosus (Pourtalès, 1869)ComecBZ12.2[10]
Asterocheres crinoidicola Humes, 2000Nemaster grandis Clark, 1909ComecBZ32.2[10]
Asterocheres spinopaulus Johnsson, 1998Comatulida ecBR [67]
Collocheres amicus Kim, 2007Comanthus briareus (Bell, 1882)
[as Comantheria rotula Clark, 1912]		ComecID17[32]
Collocheres brevipes Shin, Kim, 2004 (Figure 2i)Anneissia solaster (Clark, 1907)
[as Comanthus solaster Clark, 1907]		ComecKP25[66]
Collocheres comanthiphilus Humes, 1987Comanthus parvicirrus (Müller, 1841)ComecNC1.5, 5[22]
Collocheres comanthiphilus Humes, 1987Comanthus sp.ComecNC1, 3[22]
Collocheres comanthiphilus Humes, 1987Comanthus wahlbergii (Müller, 1843)ComecID, NC0.5, 2, 25[22]
Collocheres comanthiphilus Humes, 1987Oxycomanthus bennetti (Müller, 1841)
[as Comanthus bennetti (Müller, 1841)]		ComecAU, ID, PH2, 3, 4, 12, 40[22]
Collocheres humesi Kim, 2007Comanthus briareus (Bell, 1882)
[as Comantheria rotula Clark, 1912]		ComecID17[32]
Collocheres inaequalis Ho, 1982Anneissia japonica (Müller, 1841)
[as Comanthus japonica (Müller, 1841), Comanthus japonicus (Müller, 1841)]		ComecJP [63]
Collocheres inflatiseta Humes, 1987Phanogenia multibrachiata (Carpenter, 1888)
[as Comaster multibrachiatus (Carpenter, 1888)]		ComecID10[22]
Collocheres marginatus Humes, 1987Comaster multifidus (Müller, 1841)
[as Comanthina variabilis (Bell, 1882)]		ComecAU9[22]
Collocheres parvus Humes, 1987Davidaster rubiginosus (Pourtalès, 1869)ComecID10[22]
Collocheres prionotus Humes, 1990Nemaster grandis Clark, 1909ComecID, MG0.5, 1[56]
Collocheres serrulatus Humes, 1987ComatulidaComecID10[22]
Collocheres solidus Shin, Kim, 2004Comanthus briareus (Bell, 1882)
[as Comantheria rotula Clark, 1912]		ComecKP25[66]
Collocheres solidus Shin, Kim, 2004Anneissia solaster (Clark, 1907)
[as Comanthus solaster Clark, 1907]		ComecKP25[66]
Collocheres tamladus Shin, Kim, 2004Comanthus parvicirrus (Müller, 1841)ZecKP [66]
Collocheres thysanotus Humes, 1987Comanthus sp.ComecAU9[22]
Collocheres thysanotus Humes, 1987Comanthus wahlbergii (Müller, 1843)ComecAU9[22]
Collocheres titillator Humes, 1987Oxycomanthus bennetti (Müller, 1841)
[as Comanthus bennetti (Müller, 1841)]		ComecID10[22]
Collocheres uncinatus Stock, 1966Comanthus briareus (Bell, 1882)
[as Comantheria rotula Clark, 1912]		ColecIL20[70]
Collocheres uncinatus Stock, 1966Anneissia japonica (Müller, 1841)
[as Comanthus japonica (Müller, 1841), Comanthus japonicus (Müller, 1841)]		ComecID, MG0.5, 1, 3[56]
Collocheres uncinatus Stock, 1966Phanogenia multibrachiata (Carpenter, 1888)
[as Comaster multibrachiatus (Carpenter, 1888)]		HecIL1, 15[70]
Glyptocheres comanthinae Humes, 1987Comaster multifidus (Müller, 1841)
[as Comanthina variabilis (Bell, 1882)]		ComecID4[22]
Glyptocheres extrusus Humes, 1987Davidaster rubiginosus (Pourtalès, 1869)ComecNC1.5[22]
Glyptocheres extrusus Humes, 1987Nemaster grandis Clark, 1909ComecID25[22]
Glyptocheres extrusus Humes, 1987ComatulidaComecAU, ID, PH2, 3, 4, 12, 40[22]
* Host family abbreviations: A—Antedonidae; Ch—Charitometridae; Col—Colobometridae; Com—Comatulidae; H—Himerometridae; M—Mariametridae; T—Tropiometridae; Z—Zygometridae. ** Symbiosis nature abbreviations: ec—ectosymbiont; en—endosymbiont. *** Country or region abbreviation: AU—Australia; BR—Brazil; BZ—Belize; FR—France; GB—United Kingdom; ID—Indonesia; IE—Ireland; IL—Israel; IN—India; IT—Italy; JM—Jamaica; JP—Japan; KP—Korea; MG—Madagascar; MH—Marshall Islands; NC—New Caledonia; PH—Philippines.

References

  1. Wright, D.F.; Ausich, W.I.; Cole, S.R.; Peter, M.E.; Rhenberg, E.C. Phylogenetic taxonomy and classification of the Crinoidea (Echinodermata). J. Paleontol. 2017, 91, 829–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Pawson, D.L.; Vance, D.J.; Messing, C.G.; Solís-Marin, F.A.; Mah, C.L. Echinodermata of the Gulf of Mexico. Gulf Mex. Orig. Waters Biota 2009, 1, 1177–1204. [Google Scholar]
  3. Messing, C.; Gondim, A.I.; Taylor, K. World List of Crinoidea. Crinoidea. World Register of Marine Species. Available online: https://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=123081 (accessed on 1 February 2023).
  4. Burnell, D.J.; ApSimon, J.W. Echinoderm Saponins. In Marine Natural Products: Chemical and Biological Perspectives; Academic Press Inc.: Toronto, ON, Canada, 1983; pp. 287–379. [Google Scholar]
  5. Britayev, T.A.; Mekhova, E.S. Assessment of hidden diversity of crinoids and their symbionts in the Bay of Nhatrang, Vietnam. Org. Divers. Evol. 2011, 11, 275–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Fabricius, K.E.; Dale, M.B. Multispecies associations of symbionts on shallow water crinoids of the central Great Barrier Reef. Coenoses 1993, 8, 41–52. [Google Scholar]
  7. Deheyn, D.D.; Lyskin, S.; Eeckhaut, I. Assemblages of symbionts in tropical shallow water crinoids and assessment of symbionts’ host-specificity. Symbiosis 2006, 42, 161–168. [Google Scholar]
  8. Clark, A.H. A monograph of the existing crinoids, vol.1. The comatulids, Pt. 3: Superfamily Comasterida. Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus. 1931, 82, 1–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Fishelson, L. Ecology of northern Red Sea crinoids and their epi- and endozoic fauna. Mar. Biol. 1974, 26, 183–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Humes, A.G. Asterocheres crinoidicola n. sp., a copepod (Siphonostomatoida: Asterocheridae) parasitic on crinoids in Belize. Syst. Parasitol. 2000, 47, 103–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Mekhova, E.S.; Britayev, T.A. Feather stars (Crinoidea, Comatulida) of Nhatrang Bay, Vietnam; fauna, habitat and symbionts. In Benthic Fauna of the Bay of Nhatrang, Southern Vietnam; Britayev, T.A., Pavlov, D.S., Eds.; KMK Scientific Press: Moscow, Russia, 2012; Volume 2, pp. 447–478. [Google Scholar]
  12. Kolbasov, G.A.; Savchenko, A.S.; Newman, W.A.; Chan, B.K.K. A New Species of Waginella (Crustacea: Thecostraca: Ascothoracida) Parasitic on a stalked crinoid from Tasman Sea, with notes on morphology of related genera. Front. Mar. Sci. 2021, 8, 616001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Rao, K.H.; Sowbhagyavathi, R. Observations on the associates of crinoids at Waltair coast with special reference to myzostomes. Proc. Indian Natn. Sci. Acad 1972, 38, 360–366. [Google Scholar]
  14. Zmarzly, D.L. Distribution and ecology of shallow-water crinoids at Enewetak Atoll, Marshall Islands, with an annotated checklist of their symbionts. Pac. Sci. 1984, 38, 105–122. [Google Scholar]
  15. Tchesunov, A.V.; Britayev, T.A.; Larionov, V.V.; Khodkina, I.V.; Tzetlin, A.B. Notes on commensals of some crinoids from Maldive coral reefs. In Symbioses in Marine Animals; Sveshnikov, V.A., Ed.; Vaskhnil: Moscow, Russia, 1989; pp. 166–192. [Google Scholar]
  16. Morton, B.; Mladenov, P.V. The associates of Tropiometra afra-macrodiscus (Echinodermata: Crinoidea) in Hong Kong. In The Marine Flora and Fauna of Hong Kong and Southern China III, Proceedings of the Fourth International Marine Biological Workshop: The Marine flora and Fauna of Hong Kong and Southern China, Hong Kong, China, 11–29 April 1989; Morton, B., Ed.; Hong Kong University Press: Hong Kong, China, 1992; pp. 431–438. [Google Scholar]
  17. Huang, H.D.; Rittschof, D.; Jeng, M.S. Multispecies associations of macrosymbionts on the comatulid crinoid Comanthina schlegeli (Carpenter) in Southern Taiwan. Symbiosis 2005, 39, 47–51. [Google Scholar]
  18. Grygier, M.J. Unusual and mostly cysticolous crustacean, molluscan, and myzostomidan associates of echinoderms. In Echinoderm Biology, Proceedings of the Sixth International Echinoderm Conference, Victoria, BC, Canada, 23–28 August 1987; Burke, R.D., Mladenov, P.V., Lambert, P., Parsley, R.L., Eds.; Balkema: Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 1987; pp. 775–784. [Google Scholar]
  19. Hempson, T.N.; Griffiths, C.L. Symbionts of comatulid crinoids in False Bay, South Africa. Afr. Zool. 2008, 43, 237–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Britayev, T.A.; Beksheneva, L.F.; Deart, Y.V.; Mekhova, E.S. Structure and variability of symbiotic assemblages associated with feather stars (Crinoidea: Comatulida) Himerometra robustipinna. Oceanology 2016, 56, 666–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Virgili, R.; Cerrano, C.; Ponti, M.; Lasut, M.T.; Reimer, J.D. Crinoid diversity and their symbiotic communities at Bangka Island (North Sulawesi, Indonesia). Mar. Biodivers. 2020, 50, 90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Humes, A.G. Copepoda associated with crinoid echinoderms in the western Pacific. Publ. Seto Mar. Biol. Lab. 1987, 32, 63–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Summers, M.M.; Messing, C.G.; Rouse, G.W. Phylogeny of Comatulidae (Echinodermata: Crinoidea: Comatulida): A new classification and an assessment of morphological characters for crinoid taxonomy. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2014, 80, 319–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Isaychev, A.N.; Schepetov, D.; Zhou, Y.; Kitashov, A.V.; Britayev, T.A.; Ivanenko, V.N. New Myzostomids (Annelida) in Symbiosis with Feather Stars in the Shallow Waters of the South China Sea. Preprints 2023, 2023122030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Humes, A.G. How many copepods. In Ecology and Morphology of Copepods: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Copepoda, Developments in Hydrobiology, Baltimore, ML, USA, 6–13 June 1993; Ferrari, F.D., Bradley, B.P., Eds.; Springer: London, UK, 1994; Volume 292–293, pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  26. Ho, J.S.; Gómez, S.; Fajer-Avila, E. Lepeophtheirus simplex sp. n., a caligid copepod (Siphonostomatoida) parasitic on “botete” (bullseye puffer, Sphoeroides annulatus) in Sinaloa, Mexico. Folia Parasitol. 2001, 48, 240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Bron, J.E.; Frisch, D.; Goetze, E.; Johnson, S.C.; Lee, C.E.; Wyngaard, G.A. Observing copepods through a genomic lens. Front. Zool. 2011, 8, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Bernot, J.P.; Boxshall, G.A.; Crandall, K.A. A synthesis tree of the Copepoda: Integrating phylogenetic and taxonomic data reveals multiple origins of parasitism. PeerJ 2021, 9, e12034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Humes, A.G. Synopsis of copepods associated with asteroid echinoderms, including new species from the Moluccas. J. Nat. Hist. 1986, 20, 981–1020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ivanenko, V.N.; Ferrari, F.D.; Smurov, A.V. Nauplii and copepodids of Scottomyzon gibberum (Copepoda: Siphonostomatoida: Scottomyzontidae, a new family, a symbiont of Asterias ruben (Asteroidea). Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 2001, 114, 237–261. [Google Scholar]
  31. Boxshall, G.A.; Halsey, S.H. An Introduction to Copepod Diversity; Part II; The Ray Society: London, UK, 2004; pp. 422–966. [Google Scholar]
  32. Kim, I.H. Copepods (Crustacea) associated with marine invertebrates from the Moluccas. Korean J. Syst. Zool. 2007, 6, 1–126. [Google Scholar]
  33. Mahatma, R.; Arbizu, P.M.; Ivanenko, V.N. A new genus and species of Brychiopontiidae Humes, 1974 (Crustacea: Copepoda: Siphonostomatoida) associated with an abyssal holothurian in the Northeast Pacific nodule province. Zootaxa 2008, 1866, 290–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Venmathi Maran, B.A.; Kim, I.H.; Bratova, O.A.; Ivanenko, V.N. Two new species of poecilostomatoid copepods symbiotic on the venomous echinoid Toxopneustes pileolus (Lamarck) (Echinodermata) from Vietnam. Syst. Parasitol. 2017, 94, 227–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Yeom, J.; Nikitin, M.A.; Ivanenko, V.N.; Lee, W. A new minute ectosymbiotic harpacticoid copepod living on the sea cucumber Eupentacta fraudatrix in the East/Japan Sea. PeerJ 2018, 6, e4979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Ivanenko, V.N.; Hoeksema, B.W.; Mudrova, S.V.; Nikitin, M.A.; Martínez, A.; Rimskaya-Korsakova, N.N.; Berumen, M.L.; Fontaneto, D. Lack of host specificity of copepod crustaceans associated with mushroom corals in the Red Sea. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2018, 127, 770–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Korzhavina, O.A.; Hoeksema, B.W.; Ivanenko, V.N. A review of Caribbean Copepoda associated with reef-dwelling cnidarians, echinoderms and sponges. Contrib. Zool. 2019, 88, 297–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Korzhavina, O.A.; Reimer, J.D.; Ehrlich, H.; Ivanenko, V.N. Global diversity and distribution of Lamippidae copepods symbiotic on Octocorallia. Symbiosis 2021, 83, 265–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Korzhavina, O.A.; Grishina, D.Y.; Chen, X.; Fontaneto, D.; Ivanenko, V.N. Diving into diversity: Copepod crustaceans in octocoral associations. Diversity 2023, 15, 1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Korzhavina, O.A.; Nikitin, M.A.; Hoeksema, B.W.; Armenteros, M.; Reimer, J.D.; Ivanenko, V.N. Tracing geographic and molecular footprints of copepod crustaceans causing multifocal purple spots syndrome in the Caribbean sea fan Gorgonia ventalina. Preprints 2023, 2023120266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. World Register of Marine Species (WoRMS). Available online: https://www.marinespecies.org/ (accessed on 1 February 2023).
  42. Wieczorek, J.; Bloom, D.; Guralnick, R.; Blum, S.; Döring, M.; Giovanni, R.; Robertson, T.; Vieglais, D. Darwin core: An evolving community-developed biodiversity data standard. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e29715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Spalding, M.D.; Fox, H.E.; Allen, G.R.; Davidson, N.; Ferdaña, Z.A.; Finlayson, M.A.X.; Halpern, B.S.; Jorge, M.A.; Lombana, A.L.; Lourie, S.A.; et al. Marine ecoregions of the world: A bioregionalization of coastal and shelf areas. BioScience 2007, 57, 573–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Mikhailov, K.V.; Ivanenko, V.N. Lack of reproducibility of molecular phylogenetic analysis of Cyclopoida. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2019, 139, 106574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Mikhailov, K.V.; Ivanenko, V.N. Low support values and lack of reproducibility of molecular phylogenetic analysis of Copepoda orders. Arthrop. Sel. 2021, 30, 39–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Wickham, H.; Wickham, M.H. Package Tidyverse. Easily Install and Load the ‘Tidyverse’. Available online: https://www.tidyverse.org/ (accessed on 1 February 2024).
  47. Wickham, H.; François, R.; Henry, L.; Müller, K. dplyr: A Grammar of Data Manipulation, R Package Version 0.8.0.1; The R Foundation: Vienna, Austria, 2019. Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dplyr (accessed on 1 February 2024).
  48. Wickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 1–260. [Google Scholar]
  49. Attali, D.; Baker, C. ggExtra: Add Marginal Histograms to ‘ggplot2’, and More ‘ggplot2’ Enhancements. Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/package=ggExtra (accessed on 1 February 2024).
  50. Kassambara, A. ggpubr: ‘ggplot2’ BASED Publication Ready Plots. 2019. Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ggpubr (accessed on 1 February 2024).
  51. Auguie, B.; Antonov, A.; Auguie, M.B. Package ‘gridExtra’. In Miscellaneous Functions for “Grid” Graphics. 2017. Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/gridExtra/gridExtra.pdf (accessed on 1 February 2024).
  52. Bache, S.M.; Wickham, H.; Henry, L.; Henry, M.L. Package ‘magrittr’. R. Package Version. 2022. Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/magrittr/magrittr.pdf (accessed on 1 February 2024).
  53. Becker, R.A.; Wilks, A.R.; Brownrigg, R.; Minka, T.P.; Deckmyn, A. Maps: Draw Geographical Maps. R Package. 2018. Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/maps/index.html (accessed on 1 February 2024).
  54. Wickham, H. Stringr: Modern, consistent string processing. R J. 2010, 2, 38–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Neuwirth, E. RColorBrewer: ColorBrewer Palettes, R Package Version 1.1–2; The R Foundation: Vienna, Austria, 2014. Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/RColorBrewer/index.html (accessed on 1 February 2024).
  56. Humes, A.G. Collocheres (Copepoda: Siphonostomatoida) associated with the crinoid Capillaster multiradiatus in the Indo-Pacific. Trans. Am. Microsc. Soc. 1990, 109, 61–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Humes, A.G. Pseudanthessius comanthi n. sp. (Copepoda, Cyclopoida) associated with a crinoid at Eniwetok Atoll. Pac. Sci. 1972, 26, 373–380. [Google Scholar]
  58. Humes, A.G. Pseudanthessiid copepods (Cyclopoida) Associated with crinoids and echinoids (Echinodermata) in the tropical western Pacific Ocean. Smithson. Contrib. Zool. 1977, 243, 1–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Changeux, J.P.; Delamare Deboutteville, C. Enterognathus comatulae Giesbrecht, 1900. Vie Milieu 1956, 7, 106–107. [Google Scholar]
  60. Grainger, J.N.R. Notes on parasitic Crustacea. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 1950, 12/3, 635–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Giesbrecht, W. Mittheilungen über Copepoden, 14. Enterognathus comatulae, ein neuer Darmparasit. Mitt. Zool. Stn. Neapel. 1900, 14, 61–82. [Google Scholar]
  62. Stock, J.H. Copepoda associated with Neapolitan invertebrates. Pubbl. Staz. Zool. Napoli 1959, 31, 59–75. [Google Scholar]
  63. Ho, J.S. Copepoda associated with echinoderms of the Sea of Japan. Rep. Sado Mar. Biol. Stn. Niigata Univ. 1982, 12, 33–61. [Google Scholar]
  64. Ohtsuka, S.; Kitazawa, K.; Boxshall, G.A. A new genus of endoparasitic copepods (Cyclopoida: Enterognathidae), forming a gall in the calyx of deep-sea crinoids. Zool. Sci. 2010, 27, 689–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Ohtsuka, S.; Shimomura, M.; Kitazawa, K. A new species of Enterognathus (Copepoda, Cyclopoida, Enterognathidae) collected from the Seto Inland Sea, western Japan. ZooKeys 2012, 180, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  66. Shin, S.; Kim, I.H. Three new species of Collocheres (Copepoda, Siphonostomatoida, Asterocheridae) associated with crinoids and ophiuroids from Korea. Korean J. Biol. Sci. 2004, 8, 267–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Johnsson, R. Asterocherids (Copepoda; Siphonostomatoida) associated with invertebrates from California Reefs: Abrolhos (Brazil). Hydrobiologia 2002, 470, 247–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Kim, I.H. Siphonostomatoid Copepoda (Crustacea) associated with invertebrates from tropical waters. Korean J. Syst. Zool. 2010, 8, 1–176. [Google Scholar]
  69. Reddiah, K. Two new Pseudanthessius species (Copepoda—Lichomolgidae) from the Madras harbour. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. India 1968, 8, 320–328. [Google Scholar]
  70. Stock, J.H. On Collocheres Canu, 1893, and Leptomyzon Sars, 1915, two synonymous genera of Copepoda. Beaufortia 1966, 13, 221–239. [Google Scholar]
  71. Stock, J.H. Copepoda associated with invertebrates from the Gulf of Aqaba. 2. Enterognathus n. sp., a new endoparasite of Crinoida (Cyclopoida, Ascidicolidae). Proc. K. Ned. Akad. Wet. Amst. (C) 1966, 69, 211–216. [Google Scholar]
  72. Stock, J.H. Copepoda associated with invertebrates from the Gulf of Aqaba. 3. The genus Pseudanthessius Claus, 1889 (Cyclopoida, Lichomolgidae). Proc. K. Ned. Akad. Wet. (C) 1967, 70, 232–248. [Google Scholar]
  73. Stock, J.H. Copepoda associated with invertebrates from the Gulf of Aqaba. 4. Two new Lichomolgidae associated with Crinoida. Proc. K. Ned. Akad. Wet. Amst. Ser. C Biol. Sci. 1967, 70, 569–578. [Google Scholar]
  74. Stock, J.H. A new species of Scambicornus (Copepoda, Cyclopoidea, Sabelliphilidae), associated with an unusual host, the crinoid Capillaster in the Red Sea. In Selected Papers on Crustacea; Farewell Committee: Trivandrum, India, 1983; pp. 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  75. Humes, A.G.; Ho, J.S. Cyclopoid copepods of the genus Pseudanthessius associated with crinoids in Madagascar. Smithson. Contrib. Zool. 1970, 54, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Humes, A.G.; Stock, J.H. A revision of the family Lichomolgidae Kossman, 1877, cyclopoid copepods mainly associated with marine invertebrates. Smithson. Contrib. Zool. 1973, 127, 1–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Humes, A.G. Copépodes parasites de Mollusques à Madagascar. Mémoires L’institut Sci. Madagascar. F 1959, 2, 285–342. [Google Scholar]
  78. Martínez, A.; Eckert, E.M.; Artois, T.; Careddu, G.; Casu, M.; Curini-Galletti, M.; Gazale, V.; Gobert, S.; Ivanenko, V.N.; Jondelius, U.; et al. Human access impacts biodiversity of microscopic animals in sandy beaches. Commun. Biol. 2020, 3, 175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Huys, R.; Boxshall, G. An appreciation of the contribution of Arthur Humes to copepod systematics. J. Crustac. Biol. 2001, 21, 13–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Zeppilli, D.; Sarrazin, J.; Leduc, D.; Arbizu, P.M.; Fontaneto, D.; Fontanier, C.; Gooday, A.J.; Kristensen, R.M.; Ivanenko, V.N.; Sørensen, M.V.; et al. Is the meiofauna a good indicator for climate change and anthropogenic impacts? Mar. Biodiv. 2015, 45, 505–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Animals 14 00877 g001
Figure 1. Numbers of new species and cumulative percentage (green line) of known species of (A) crinoids and (B) symbiotic copepods associated with them and described in publications over time. Based on the WoRMS database [41].
Figure 1. Numbers of new species and cumulative percentage (green line) of known species of (A) crinoids and (B) symbiotic copepods associated with them and described in publications over time. Based on the WoRMS database [41].
Animals 14 00877 g001
Animals 14 00877 g002
Figure 2. Habitus of copepod crustaceans living on crinoids. (a) Enterognathus inabai, dorsal view, scale bar 1 mm; (b) Parenterognathus troglodytes, lateral view, scale bar 0.5 mm; (c) Critomolgus fishelsoni, dorsal view, scale bar 0.5 mm; (d) Doridicola patulus, dorsal view; (e) Kelleria gradata, ventral view, 0.2 mm; (f) Pseudanthessius comanthi, both sexes are shown, dorsal view, 0.5 mm; (g) Scambicornus pillaii, dorsal view, 0.1 mm; (h) Asterocheres crinoidicola, both sexes are shown, dorsal view, 0.3 mm; (i) Collocheres brevipes, both sexes are shown, dorsal view, 0.1 mm; ((a,b) Cyclopoida, (c–g) Poecilostomatoida, (h,i) Siphonostomatoida). After [65] (a), [64] (b), [73] (c,e), [77] (d), [53] (f), [75] (g), [10] (h), [66] (i).
Figure 2. Habitus of copepod crustaceans living on crinoids. (a) Enterognathus inabai, dorsal view, scale bar 1 mm; (b) Parenterognathus troglodytes, lateral view, scale bar 0.5 mm; (c) Critomolgus fishelsoni, dorsal view, scale bar 0.5 mm; (d) Doridicola patulus, dorsal view; (e) Kelleria gradata, ventral view, 0.2 mm; (f) Pseudanthessius comanthi, both sexes are shown, dorsal view, 0.5 mm; (g) Scambicornus pillaii, dorsal view, 0.1 mm; (h) Asterocheres crinoidicola, both sexes are shown, dorsal view, 0.3 mm; (i) Collocheres brevipes, both sexes are shown, dorsal view, 0.1 mm; ((a,b) Cyclopoida, (c–g) Poecilostomatoida, (h,i) Siphonostomatoida). After [65] (a), [64] (b), [73] (c,e), [77] (d), [53] (f), [75] (g), [10] (h), [66] (i).
Animals 14 00877 g002
Animals 14 00877 g003
Figure 3. Number of records per association of symbiotic copepod genera with crinoid families. The size of each oval mark denotes the number of records.
Figure 3. Number of records per association of symbiotic copepod genera with crinoid families. The size of each oval mark denotes the number of records.
Animals 14 00877 g003
Animals 14 00877 g004
Figure 4. Distribution of the copepods associated with crinoids in the World Ocean. The marginal histogram illustrates the latitudinal and longitudinal distribution of the reports of copepods.
Figure 4. Distribution of the copepods associated with crinoids in the World Ocean. The marginal histogram illustrates the latitudinal and longitudinal distribution of the reports of copepods.
Animals 14 00877 g004
Animals 14 00877 g005
Figure 5. Distribution of symbiotic copepods associated with crinoids by depth. The horizontal line within each box represents the median of the dataset. The box defines an interquartile range from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Vertical lines extending from each box show the minimum and maximum data values. Data points appearing outside of these vertical lines are identified as outliers. Dashed lines demarcate depths not depicted, where no instances of copepod presence on crinoids were recorded.
Figure 5. Distribution of symbiotic copepods associated with crinoids by depth. The horizontal line within each box represents the median of the dataset. The box defines an interquartile range from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Vertical lines extending from each box show the minimum and maximum data values. Data points appearing outside of these vertical lines are identified as outliers. Dashed lines demarcate depths not depicted, where no instances of copepod presence on crinoids were recorded.
Animals 14 00877 g005
Table 1. List of references reporting records of copepods, divided by world ocean region and country (for more details see Table A1 and Table S1).
Table 1. List of references reporting records of copepods, divided by world ocean region and country (for more details see Table A1 and Table S1).
RegionCountriesReferences
Central Indo-PacificAustralia[22]
Indonesia[22,32,56]
Marshall Islands[57]
New Caledonia[22,58]
Philippines[22]
Temperate North AtlanticFrance[59]
Ireland[60]
Italy[61,62]
United Kingdom[60]
Temperate North PacificJapan[63,64,65]
Korea[66]
Tropical AtlanticBelize[10]
Brazil[67]
Jamaica[68]
Western Indo-PacificIndia[69]
Israel[70,71,72,73,74]
Madagascar[55,72,75,76,77]
Table 2. The families of Copepoda in relation to Crinoidea *.
Table 2. The families of Copepoda in relation to Crinoidea *.
TaxaTotal No
of Known
Copepod
Species		No of
Species
Found on
Crinoids		No of
Relevant
Literature
Records		No of
Associated
Crinoid
Families		No of
Associated
Crinoid
Genera		No of
Associated
Crinoid
Species		Mean No
Records Per
Copepod
Host Species ± SE **		Mean No of
Host Species
Per Copepod
Species ± SE		% of Crinoid-
Associated Copepod
Species with a Single
Host Species
Cyclopoida
Enterognathidae74115672.75 ± 0.851.75 ± 0.4850
Poecilostomatoida
Kelleriidae19111111 ± NA ***1 ± NA100
Pseudanthessiidae617776131413.57 ± 5.033 ± 0.9328.57
Rhynchomolgidae270331221 ± 01 ± 0100
Synapticolidae50111111 ± NA1 ± NA100
Siphonostomatoida
Asterocheridae2711973512173.84 ± 1.172 ± NA63.16
Total67835166193542
* WoRMS database [41]. ** SE (standard error) represents the standard error for calculating the mean value. *** NA (not available) indicates the unavailability or inapplicability of data in a set.
Table 3. Crinoidea families in relation to copepods *.
Table 3. Crinoidea families in relation to copepods *.
Host TaxaNo of GeneraNo of Genera Hosting
Copepods (% of Total)		No of SpeciesNo of Species Hosting
Copepods (% of Total)		No of RecordsNo of Copepod
Species Involved		No of Host Species with
1234
Copepod Species
Comatulida
Antedonidae501 (2%)1512 (1.32%)512
Charitometridae81 (12.5%)331 (3.03%)211
Colobometridae183 (16.67%)473 (6.38%)1161 2
Comatulidae238 (34.78%)10216 (15.69%)81207531
Himerometridae52 (40%)393 (7.69%)186 2 1
Mariametridae74 (57.14%)225 (22.73%)244131
Tropiometridae11 (100%)42 (50%)2112
Zygometridae21 (50%)101 (10%)111
Total114214083316340151062
* WoRMS database [41].
Table 4. Distribution of symbiotic copepods and their crinoid hosts in various ecoregions *.
Table 4. Distribution of symbiotic copepods and their crinoid hosts in various ecoregions *.
RegionNo of LocalitiesNo of RecordsNo of Symbiont OrdersNo of Symbiont
Families		No of Symbiont
Genera		No of Symbiont
Species		No of Host FamiliesNo of Host GeneraNo of Host Species
Central Indo-Pacific2174223174914
Temperate North Atlantic451111112
Temperate North Pacific5112236445
Tropical Atlantic121111122
Western Indo-Pacific23713671351112
* WoRMS database [41].
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Korzhavina, O.A.; Gubareva, N.V.; Kitashov, A.V.; Britayev, T.A.; Ivanenko, V.N. From Microscale Interactions to Macroscale Patterns in Copepod–Crinoid Symbiosis. Animals 2024, 14, 877. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14060877

AMA Style

Korzhavina OA, Gubareva NV, Kitashov AV, Britayev TA, Ivanenko VN. From Microscale Interactions to Macroscale Patterns in Copepod–Crinoid Symbiosis. Animals. 2024; 14(6):877. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14060877

Chicago/Turabian Style

Korzhavina, Oksana A., Natalia V. Gubareva, Andrey V. Kitashov, Temir A. Britayev, and Viatcheslav N. Ivanenko. 2024. "From Microscale Interactions to Macroscale Patterns in Copepod–Crinoid Symbiosis" Animals 14, no. 6: 877. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14060877

APA Style

Korzhavina, O. A., Gubareva, N. V., Kitashov, A. V., Britayev, T. A., & Ivanenko, V. N. (2024). From Microscale Interactions to Macroscale Patterns in Copepod–Crinoid Symbiosis. Animals, 14(6), 877. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14060877

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop