Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T15:49:18.141Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Laboratory Behaviour of Mosshead Sculpins Clinocottus Globiceps Toward Their Sea Anemone Prey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

Ronald M. Yoshiyama ,
Ann L. Knowlton ,
Jill R. Welter ,
Stephanie Comfort ,
Billie Jo Hopka  and
W. David Wallace
Ronald M. Yoshiyama
Affiliation:
Oregon Institute of Marine Biology, University of Oregon, Charleston, Oregon 97420, USA.
Ann L. Knowlton
Affiliation:
Oregon Institute of Marine Biology, University of Oregon, Charleston, Oregon 97420, USA.
Jill R. Welter
Affiliation:
Oregon Institute of Marine Biology, University of Oregon, Charleston, Oregon 97420, USA.
Stephanie Comfort
Affiliation:
Oregon Institute of Marine Biology, University of Oregon, Charleston, Oregon 97420, USA.
Billie Jo Hopka
Affiliation:
Oregon Institute of Marine Biology, University of Oregon, Charleston, Oregon 97420, USA.
W. David Wallace
Affiliation:
Oregon Institute of Marine Biology, University of Oregon, Charleston, Oregon 97420, USA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Mosshead sculpins, Clinocottus globiceps, of the North American Pacific coast commonly feed upon sea anemones and in doing so make frequent body contact with the anemone tentacles. An attempt was made to determine if some sort of acclimation process, as seen in certain pomacentrid anemone fishes, is necessary for C. globiceps to engage in such repeated contacts. The laboratory experiments with C. globiceps and three species of anemones (Anthopleura xanthogrammica, A. elegantissima, Urticina crassicornis) revealed no obvious and consistent acclimatory behaviours by the fish toward anemones following a period of enforced isolation from anemones. Actions by C. globiceps toward anemones included frequent bites to tentacles, touches to tentacles without biting (whether intentional or not), and bites to the anemone's base or column. Tentacle bites occurred, on average, significantly earlier than tentacle touches in trials with Anthopleura elegantissima. There was no evidence that either tentacle bites or tentacle touches occurred earlier than the other in trials with A xanthogrammica and U. crassicornis. In paired trials where individual

C. globiceps were tested first with A. xanthogrammica and then with U. crassicornis, the fish showed no significant difference in response to the two anemone species, either in the frequencies of different types of actions (bites or touches) or in the average order in which tentacle bites or tentacle touches occurred. Experiments were also conducted to compare the degree to which different sculpin species avoided contact with anemone (A. elegantissima) tentacles. Clinocottus globiceps seemed more tolerant of contact with tentacles than were the other sculpins, and only C. globiceps appeared intentionally to touch tentacles, sometimes leaning against or biting them.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 76 , Issue 3 , August 1996 , pp. 793 - 809
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Brezina, J., 1979. Feeding studies on three species of fish from Tomales Bay, California. MSc thesis, University of the Pacific, Stockton.Google Scholar
Brooks, W.R. & Mariscal, R.N., 1984. The acclimation of anemone fishes to sea anemones: protection by changes in the fish's mucous coat. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 80, 277–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, J.A., 1992. Acclimation of the shrimp, Periclimenes anthophilus, to the giant sea anemone, Condylactis gigantea. Bulletin of Marine Science, 50, 331–341.Google Scholar
Cross, J.N., 1981. Structure of a rocky intertidal fish assemblage. PhD thesis, University of Washington, Seattle.Google Scholar
Davenport, D. & Norris, K.S., 1958. Observations on the symbiosis of the sea anemone Stoichactis and the pomacentrid fish, Amphiprion percula. Biological Bulletin. Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, 115, 397–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, J., 1992. The role of sea anemones as refuges and feeding habitats for the temperate fish Oxylebius pictus. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 35, 381–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fautin, D.G., 1987. Who are those little orange fish and why are they living in a sea anemone? Pacific Discovery, 40, 18–29.Google Scholar
Fautin, D.G., 1991. The anemone fish symbiosis: what is known and what is not. Symbiosis, 10, 23–46.Google Scholar
Fautin, D.G. & Allen, G.R., 1992. Field guide to anemone fishes and their host sea anemones. Perth: Western Australian Museum.Google Scholar
Fukui, H., 1973. Some experiments on the symbiotic association between sea anemone and Amphiprion. Publications of the Seto Marine Biological Laboratory. Japan, 20, 419–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbons, J.D., 1985. Nonparametric methods for quantitative analysis, 2nd ed.Columbus, Ohio: American Sciences Press.Google Scholar
Green, J.M., 1971. Local distribution of Oligocottus maculosus Girard and other tidepool cottids of the west coast of Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 49, 1111–1128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossman, G.D., 1986. Food resource partitioning in a rocky intertidal assemblage. Journal of Zoology, 1, 317–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halversen, C.E., 1982. Habitat selection and other aspects of the ecology of some tidepool sculpins. MA thesis, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Hand, C., 1955a. The sea anemones of central California. Part II. The endomyarian and mesomyarian anemones. The Wasmann Journal of Biology, 13, 37–99.Google Scholar
Hand, C., 1955b. The sea anemones of central California. Part III. The acontiarian anemones. The Wasmann Journal of Biology, 13, 189–251.Google Scholar
Johnston, R.F., 1954. The summer food of some intertidal fishes of Monterey County, California. California Fish and Game, 40, 65–68.Google Scholar
Love, R.M., 1991. Probably more than you want to know about the fishes of the Pacific Coast. Santa Barabara, California: Really Big Press.Google Scholar
Lubbock, R., 1980. Why are clown fishes not stung by sea anemones? Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 207, 35–61.Google Scholar
Mariscal, R.N., 1970. An experimental analysis of the protection of Amphiprion xanthurus Cuvier & Valenciennes and some other anemone fishes from sea anemones. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 4, 134–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mariscal, R.N., 1971. Experimental studies on the protection of anemone fishes from sea anemones. In Aspects of the biology of symbiosis (ed. T.C., Cheng), pp. 283–315. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Mariscal, R.N., 1974. Nematocysts. In Coelenterate biology: reviews and perspectives (eds. L., Muscatine and H.M., Lenhoff), pp. 129–178. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, E.J., 1968. Specific antigens released into sea water by contracting anemones (Coelenterata). Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, 25, 169–176.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mitchell, D.F., 1953. An analysis of stomach contents of California tide pool fishes. American Midland Naturalist, 49, 862–871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miyagawa, K., 1989. Experimental analysis of the symbiosis between anemone fish and sea anemones. Ethology, 80, 19–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miyagawa, K. & Hidaka, T., 1980. Amphiprion clarkii juvenile: innate protection against and chemical attraction by symbiotic sea anemones. Proceedings of the Japan Academy, 56, 356–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mollick, R.S., 1970. Food habits of Clinocottus analis (Girard). California Fish and Game, 56, 133–134.Google Scholar
Ruiz-Campos, G. & Hammann, M.G., 1991. Feeding of the woolly sculpin, Clinocottus analis (Pisces: Cottidae), in Todos Santos Bay, Baja California, Mexico. Southwestern ‘Naturalist, 36, 348–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlichter, D., 1975. Produktion oder Übernahme von Schutzstoffen als Ursache des Nesselschutzes von Anemonenfischen? Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 20, 49–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlichter, D., 1976. Macromolecular mimicry: substances released by sea anemones and their role in the protection of anemone fishes. In Colenterate ecology and behavior (ed. G.O., Mackie), pp. 433–441. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shick, J.M., 1991. A functional biology of sea anemones. London: Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, S. & Castellan, N.J. Jr, 1988. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences, 2nd ed.New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.Google Scholar
Sokal, R.R. & Rohlf, F.J., 1981. Biometry. The principles and practices of statistics in biological research, 2nd ed.San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Waters, V.L., 1973. Food preference of the nudibranch Aeolidia papillosa, and the effect of the defenses of the prey on predation. Veliger, 15, 174–192.Google Scholar
Yoshiyama, R.M., 1980. Food habits of three species of rocky intertidal sculpins (Cottidae) in Central California. Copeia, 1980, 515–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoshiyama, R.M., 1981. Distribution and abundance patterns of rocky intertidal fishes in central California. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 6, 315–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar