Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T16:48:30.121Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Amphipod Food Preference and Iridaeaspp. (Rhodophyta) Spore Release and Dispersal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

A. H. Buschmann
A. H. Buschmann
Affiliation:
Departamento de Acuicultura y Recursos Acuáticos, Instituto Profesional de Osorno, Casilla 933, Osorno, Chile
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Using laboratory experiments, this study examines the nature of the grazing relationship between the amphipod Hyale hirtipalma (Dana) and the red algae Iridaea spp., and the potential effects of grazing on the release and dispersal of algal spores. The results indicate that Hyale hirtipalma has a significant food preference for the cystocarpic stage of Iridaea laminarioides Bory when compared with consumption of Ulva rigida C. Ag. Hyale hirtipalma also shows a significantly greater food preference for cystocarpic tissues of Iridaea laminarioides and I. ciliata Kützing than for other karyological stages of these algae. By consuming the cystocarpic tissues, H. hirtipalma significantly increases the number of carpospores which are released and which settle at all measured distances from the mature cystocarpic I. laminarioides frond where measurements were taken. This evidence, together with information previously published, indicates that several Hyale species show similar food preferences towards the cystocarpic stage of Iridaea spp., and probably have the same ecological role as spore releasers and dispersal agents.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 71 , Issue 4 , November 1991 , pp. 891 - 897
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1991

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

REFERENCES

Brawley, S.H. & Adey, W.H., 1981a. The effect of micrograzers on algal community structure in a coral reef microcosm. Marine Biology, 61, 167–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brawley, S.H. & Adey, W.H., 1981b. Micrograzers may affect macroalgal density. Nature, London, 292, 177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buschmann, A.H., 1990. Intertidal macroalgae as refuge and food for amphipods in central Chile. Aquatic Botany, 36, 237–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buschmann, A.H. & Bravo, A., 1990. Intertidal amphipods as potential dispersal agents of carpospores of Iridaea laminarioides (Gigartinales: Rhodophyta). Journal ofPhycology, 26, 417–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buschmann, A.H. & Santelices, B., 1987. Micrograzers and spore release inlridaea laminarioides Bory (Rhodophyta: Gigartinales). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 108, 171–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, A.R.O., 1986. Population and community ecology of seaweeds. Advances in Marine Biology, 23, 1–161.Google Scholar
A., Fuji 1967. Ecological studies on the growth and food consumption of Japanese common littoral sea urchin, Strongylocentrotus intermedius (A. Agassiz). Memoirs of the Faculty of Fisheries, Hokkaido University, 15, 83–160.Google Scholar
Hawkins, S.J. & Hartnoll, R.G., 1983. Grazing of intertidal algae by marine invertebrates. Oceanography and Marine Biology. Annual Review. London, 21, 195–282.Google Scholar
Hay, M.E., Duffy, J.E., Pfister, C.A. & Fenical, W., 1987. Chemical defence against different marine herbivores: are amphipods insect equivalents Ecology, 68, 1567–1580.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Janzen, D.H., 1983. Dispersal of seeds by vertebrate guts. In Coevolution (ed. Futuyma, D.J. and Slatkin, M.), pp. 232–262. Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
Lubchenco, J., 1978. Plant species diversity in a marine intertidal community: importance of herbivore food preference and algal competitive abilities. American Naturalist, 112, 23–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lubchenco, J. & Gaines, S.D., 1981. A unified approach to marine plant-herbivore interactions. I. Populations and communities. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 12, 405–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McBane, C.D. & Crocker, R.A., 1983. Animal-algal relationships of the amphipod Hyale nilssoni (Rathke) in the rocky intertidal. Journal of Crustacean Biology, 3, 592–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGrouther, M.A., 1983. Comparison of feeding mechanisms in two intertidal gammarideans, Hyale rupicola (Haswell) and Paracalliope australis (Haswell) (Crustacea: Amphipoda). Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 34, 717–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, P.G., 1977. Organisation in simple communities: observations of the natural history of Hyale nilssoni (Amphipoda) in high littoral seaweeds. In Biology of Benthic Marine Organism., Proceedings 11th European Marine Biology Symposium (ed. Keeganef, B.F. et al.), pp. 443–451. Oxford: Pergamon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paya, I. & Santelices, B., 1989. Macroalgae survive digestion by fishes. journal of Phycology, 25, 186–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomeroy, W.M. & Levings, C.D., 1980. Association and feeding relationships between Eogammarus confervicolus (Amphipoda, Gammaridae) and benthic algae on Sturgeon and Roberts Banks, Fraser River estuary. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 37, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russo, A.R., 1989. Fluctuations of epiphytal gammaridean amphipods and their seaweed hosts on an Hawaiian algal reef. Crustaceana, 57, 25–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santelices, B. & Correa, I., 1985. Differential survival of macroalgae to digestion by intertidal herbivore molluscs. fournal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 88, 183–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santelices, B., Correa, J. & Avila, M., 1983. Benthic algal spores surviving digestion by sea urchins. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 70, 263–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santelices, B. & Ugarte, R., 1987. Algal life-history strategies and resistance to digestion. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 35, 267–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sokal, R.R. & Rohlf, F.J., 1979. Biometria. Barcelona: Ediciones H. Blume.Google Scholar
Sorensen, A.E., 1986. Seed dispersal by adhesion. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 17, 443–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spight, T.M. & Emlen, J., 1976. Clutch sizes of two marine snails with a changing food supply. Ecology, 57, 1162–1178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tararam, A.S., Wakabara, Y. & Leite, F.P.P., 1986. Vertical distribution of amphipods on algae of a Brazilian intertidal rocky shore. Crustaceana, 51, 183–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tararam, A.S., Wakabara, Y. & Mesquita, H.de, S.L. 1985. Feeding habits of Hyale media (Dana, 1853) (Crustacea-Amphipoda). Bolm Institute of Oceanography, Saõ Paulo, 33, 193–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, R.J., 1982. The relationship between food ration and reproductive effort in the green sea urchin. Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis. Oecologia, 56, 50–57.Google Scholar
Vergara, P.A., Buschmann, A.H. & Kuschel, F.A., 1990. Abundancia de anfípodos en el intermareal expuesto de Pucatrihue, Chile. Revista de Biologia Marina, Valparaiso, 25, 93–107.Google Scholar
Wakabara, Y., Tararam, A.S. & Takeda, A.M., 1983. Comparative study of the amphipod fauna living on Sargassum of two Itanhaem shores, Brazil. Journal of Crustacean Biology, 3, 602–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar