Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-nptnm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-29T17:57:09.328Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tolerance to low dissolved oxygen by the tubicolous polychaete Loimia medusa

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

Roberto J. Llanso  and
Robert J. Diaz
Roberto J. Llanso
Affiliation:
Virginia Institute of Marine Science, School of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia, USA.
Robert J. Diaz
Affiliation:
Virginia Institute of Marine Science, School of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia, USA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Tolerance and behaviour to hypoxia and anoxia by the annelid Loimia medusa (Savigny) (Polychaeta: Terebellidae), a common species in estuarine habitats where summer hypoxic events often occur, were examined in the laboratory. The worm can tolerate anoxia or severe hypoxia (7% air saturation at 26°C) for 3 to 5 d. Under low dissolved oxygen (<14% air saturation) feeding stops, although tube irrigation continues and periodic protrusions from the tube are common. Most worms come out to the sediment surface, but the number of worms dead on the surface is higher in anoxia than in hypoxia. The prevalence of L. medusa in deep estuarine channels may be partially explained by its tolerance to prolonged periods of hypoxia (14 d at 14% air saturation). Our data, however, suggest that subtle changes in oxygen concentrations may be important in the control of populations of L. medusa in habitats affected by low oxygen disturbances.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 74 , Issue 1 , February 1994 , pp. 143 - 148
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1994

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

Aller, R.C. & Yingst, J.Y., 1978. Biogeochemistry of tube-dwellings: a study of the sedentary polychaete Amphitrite ornata (Leidy). Journal of Marine Research, 36, 201–254.Google Scholar
Dales, R.P., 1955. Feeding and digestion in terebellid polychaetes. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 34, 55–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dauer, D.M., Ewing, R.M., Ranasinghe, J.A. & Rodi, J.R., 1989. Macrobenthic communities of the lower Chesapeake Bay. Norfolk, Virginia: Progress Report, Chesapeake Bay Program, Old Dominion University Research Foundation.Google Scholar
Grasshoff, K., Ehrhardt, M. & Kremling, K., 1983. Methods ofseawater analysis, 2nd ed.Weinheim: Verlag Chemie.Google Scholar
Hartman, O., 1951. The littoral marine annelids of the Gulf of Mexico. Publications of the Institute of Marine Science, University of Texas, 2, 7–124.Google Scholar
Henriksson, R., 1969. Influence of pollution on the bottom fauna of the Sound (Oresund). Oikos, 20, 507–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herreid, C.F., 1980. Hypoxia in invertebrates. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, 67A, 311–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, A.F., Shaughnessy, A.T. & Hiegel, M.H., 1987. Long-term variation in mesohaline Chesapeake Bay macrobenthos: spatial and temporal patterns. Estuaries, 10, 227–245.Google Scholar
Holland, A.F., Shaughnessy, A.T., Scott, L.C., Dickens, V.A., Ranasinghe, J.A. & Summers, J.K., 1988. Long-term benthic monitoring and assessment program for the Maryland portion of Chesapeake Bay (July 1986-October 1987). Columbia, Maryland: Progress Report, Versar Inc., EMS Operations.Google Scholar
Kristensen, E., 1984. Effect of natural concentrations on nutrient exchange between a polychaete burrow in estuarine sediment and the overlying water. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 75, 171–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuo, A.Y. & Neilson, B.J., 1987. Hypoxia and salinity in Virginia estuaries. Estuaries, 10, 277–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuo, A.Y., Park, K. & Moustafa, M.Z., 1991. Spatial and temporal variabilities of hypoxia in the Rappahannock River, Virginia. Estuaries, 14, 113–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Llansó, R.J., 1992. Effects of hypoxia on estuarine benthos: the lower Rappahannock River (Chesapeake Bay), a case study. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 35, 491–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Officer, C.B., Biggs, R.B., Taft, J.L., Cronin, L.E., Tyler, M.A. & Boynton, W.R., 1984. Chesapeake Bay anoxia: origin, development and significance. Science, New York, 223, 22–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seitz, R.D. & Schaffner, L.C., in press. Population ecology and secondary production of the polychaete Loimia medusa (Terebellidae). Marine Biology.Google Scholar
Sokal, R.R. & Rohlf, F.J., 1981. Biometry, 2nd ed.San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Warren, L.M., 1984. How intertidal polychaetes survive at low tide. In Proceedings of the First International Polychaete Conference (ed. P.A., Hutchings), pp. 238–253. Sidney: The Linnean Society of New South Wales.Google Scholar