Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T23:04:06.319Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Vertical Distribution Correlates With Pressure Tolerances of Early Embryos in The Deep-Sea Asteroid Plutonaster Bifrons

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

Craig M. Young ,
Paul A. Tyler  and
John D. Gage
Craig M. Young
Affiliation:
Division of Marine Science, Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution, 5600 US Highway 1 N, Fort Pierce, Florida 34946, USA.
Paul A. Tyler
Affiliation:
Department of Oceanography, The University, Southampton, S09 5NH.
John D. Gage
Affiliation:
Dunstaffnage Marine Research Laboratory, Scottish Association for Marine Science, PO Box 3, Oban, Argyll, PA34 4AD
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The astropectinid asteroid Plutonaster bifrons (Wyville Thomson) occurs on the continental slope of the north-east Atlantic between 1000 and 2500 m depths. As in most deepsea animals, the factors limiting bathymetric distribution of this species are unknown. Eggs were fertilized in vitro and incubated through the early embryonic cleavage stages at pressures that correspond to depths from 0 to 3000 m. The highest percentage of normal development occurred near the peak of the species distribution (2000 m), and virtually no normal development occurred at a pressure corresponding to 3000 m depth. Develop-mental rate was retarded at pressures higher and lower than those found near 2000 m. These experiments indicate that embryonic pressure tolerances could determine both the upper and lower bathymetric limits of distribution for this species.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 76 , Issue 3 , August 1996 , pp. 749 - 757
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

Bouchet, P. & Warén, A., 1994. Ontogenetic migration and dispersal of deep-sea gastropod larvae. In Reproduction, larval biology, and recruitment of the deep-sea benthos (ed. C.M., Young and K.J., Eckelbarger), pp. 98–117. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Carney, R.S., Haedrich, R.L. & Rowe, G.T., 1983. Zonation of fauna in the deep-sea. In The sea, ideas and observations on progress in the study of the seas, vol. 8. Deep-sea biology (ed. G.T., Rowe), pp. 371–398. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Chia, F.S. & Walker, C.W., 1991. Echinodermata: Asteroidea. In Reproduction of marine invertebrates, vol. VI. Echinoderms and lophophorates (ed. A.C., Giese et al.), pp. 301–355. Pacific Grove, California: Boxwood Press.Google Scholar
Childress, J.J. & Somero, G.N., 1979. Depth-related enzymic activities in muscle, brain, and heart of deep-living pelagic marine teleosts. Marine Biology, 52, 273–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, A.M. & Downey, M.E., 1992. Starfishes of the Atlantic. London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Cutler, E.B., 1975. Zoogeographical barrier on the continental slope off Cape Lookout, North Carolina. Deep-Sea Research, 22, 893–901.Google Scholar
Ellett, D.J. & Martin, J.H.A., 1973. The physical and chemical oceanography of the Rockall Channel. Deep-Sea Research, 20, 585–625.Google Scholar
Flügel, H., 1972. Pressure: animals. In Marine ecology: a comprehensive, integrated treatise on life in oceans and shallow waters, vol. 1. Environmental factors, part 3 (ed. O., Kinne), pp. 1407–1450. London: Wiley Interscience.Google Scholar
Gage, J.D., 1986. The benthic fauna of the Rockall Trough: regional distribution and bathymetric zonation. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh B, 88, 159–174.Google Scholar
Gage, J.D., Pearson, M., Clark, A.M., Paterson, G.L.J. & Tyler, P.A., 1983. Echinoderms of the Rockall Trough and adjacent areas. I. Crinoidea, Asteroidea and Ophiuroidea. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) (Zoology), 45, 263–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haedrich, R.L., Rowe, G.T. & Polloni, P.T., 1975. Zonation and faunal composition of epibenthic populations on the continental slope south of New England. Journal of Marine Research, 33, 191–212.Google Scholar
Haedrich, R.L., Rowe, G.T. & Polloni, P.T., 1980. The megabenthic fauna in the deep sea south of New England, USA. Marine Biology, 57, 165–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jannasch, H.W. & Wirsen, C.O., 1983. Microbiology in the deep sea. In The sea, ideas and observations on progress in the study of the seas, vol. 8. Deep-sea biology (ed. G.T., Rowe), pp. 231–259. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Le Danois, E., 1948. Les profundeurs de la mer. Trente aus rescherches sur la faune sous-marine au large de cotes de France. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Marsland, D. A., 1938. The effects of high hydrostatic pressure upon cell division in Arbacia eggs. Journal of Cellular and Comparative Physiology, 12, 57–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsland, D.A., 1950. The mechanisms of cell division: temperature-pressure experiments on the cleaving eggs of Arbacia punctulata. Journal of Cellular and Comparative Physiology, 36, 205–227.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marsland, D., 1970. Pressure-temperature studies on the mechanisms of cell division. In High pressure effects on cellular processes (ed. A.M., Zimmermann), pp. 260–312. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Menzies, R.J., George, R.Y. & Rowe, G.T., 1973. Abyssal environment and ecology of the world oceans. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Mills, E.L., 1972. T.R.R. Stebbing, the ‘Challenger’ and knowledge of deep-sea Amphipoda. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh B, 72, 67–87.Google Scholar
Rice, A.L., Billett, D.S.M., Fry, J., John, A.W.G., Lampitt, R.S., Mantoura, R.F.C. & Morris, R.J., 1986. Seasonal deposition of phytodetritus to the deep-sea floor. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh B, 88, 265–279.Google Scholar
Rowe, G.T. & Menzies, R.J., 1969. Zonation of large benthic invertebrates in the deep-sea off the Carolinas. Deep-Sea Research, 16, 531–537.Google Scholar
Sibuet, M. & Cherbonnier, G., 1972. Description de stades juvéniles de Plutonaster bifrons (Wyville Thomson). Comptes Rendus de l'Académe des Sciences. Paris, 275, 2515–2518.Google Scholar
Somero, G.N., 1992a. Adaptations to high hydrostatic pressure. Annual Review of Physiology, 54, 557–577.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Somero, G.N., 1992b. Biochemical ecology of deep-sea animals. Experientia, 48, 537–543.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Somero, G.N., Siebenaller, J.F. & Hochachka, P.W., 1983. Biochemical and physiological adaptations of deep-sea animals. In The sea, ideas and observations on progress in the study of the seas, vol. 8. Deep-sea biology (ed. G.T., Rowe), pp. 331–370. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Turley, C., Gooday, A.J. & Green, J.C., 1993. Maintenance of abyssal benthic Foraminifera under high pressure and low temperature: some preliminary results. Deep-Sea Research, 40, 643–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, P. A., Campos-Creasey, L.S. & Giles, L.A., 1994. Environmental control of quasi-continuous and seasonal reproduction in deep-sea benthic invertebrates. In Reproduction, larval biology, and recruitment of the deep-sea benthos (ed. C.M., Young and K.J., Eckelbarger), pp. 158–178. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, P.A., Gage, J.D., Paterson, G.J.L. & Rice, A.L., 1993. Dietary constraints on reproductive periodicity in two sympatric deep-sea astropectinid seastars. Marine Biology, 115, 267–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, P.A. & Pain, S.L., 1982. The reproductive biology of Plutonaster bifrons, Dytaster insignis and Psilaster andromeda (Asteroidea: Astropectinidae) from the Rockall Trough. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 62, 869–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vernberg, W.B. & Vernberg, F.J., 1972. Environmental physiology of marine animals. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vinogradova, N.G., 1962. Vertical zonation in the distribution of deep-sea benthic fauna in the ocean. Deep-Sea Research, 8, 245–250.Google Scholar
Yayanos, A.A., 1978. Recovery and maintenance of live amphipods at a pressure of 580 bars from an ocean depth of 5700 meters. Science, New York, 200, 1056–1059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yayanos, A.A., 1981a. Reversible inactivation of deep-sea amphipods (Paralicella capresca) by a decompression of 601 bars from atmospheric pressure. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, 69A, 563–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yayanos, A.A., 1981b. Obligately barophilic bacterium from the Mariana Trench. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 83, 9542–9546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yayanos, A.A., Dietz, A.S. & Van-Boxtel, R., 1981b. Obligately barophilic bacterium from the Mariana Trench. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 78, 5212–5215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Young, C.M. & Cameron, J.L., 1987. Laboratory and in situ flotation rates of lecithotrophic eggs from the bathyal echinoid Phormosoma placenta. Deep-sea Research, 34A, 1629–1639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, C.M. & Cameron, J.L., 1989. Developmental rate as a function of depth in the bathyal echinoid Linopneustes longispinus. In Reproduction, genetics and distribution of marine organisms (ed. J.S., Ryland and P.A., Tyler), pp. 225–231. Fredensborg, Denmark: Olsen & Olsen.Google Scholar
Young, C.M. & Tyler, P.A., 1993. Embryos of the deep-sea echinoid Echinus affinis require high pressure for development. Limnology and Oceanography, 38, 178–181.Google Scholar
Young, C.M., Tyler, P.A. & Emson, R.H., 1996. Embryonic pressure tolerances of bathyal and littoral echinoids from the tropical Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. In Echinoderms Research 1995 (ed. R.H., Emson et al.). Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, A.M. & Marsland, D., 1964. Cell division: effects of pressure on the mitotic mechanism of marine eggs (Arbacia punctulata). Experimental Cell Research, 35, 293–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar