Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T20:13:38.619Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Patterns of drilling predation on gastropods of the family Turritellidae in the Gulf of California

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2016

Debra S. Tull  and
Katrin Böhning-Gaese
Debra S. Tull
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131
Katrin Böhning-Gaese
Affiliation:
Abteilung für Verhaltensphysiologie, Beim Kupferhammer 8, 7400 Tübingen, Germany
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Predatory marine snails and their prey provide a unique look at many aspects of predation events, allowing behavioral inference and studies of coevolution. This study examines differential predation patterns, rates, and success of two co-occurring gastropod predator families which drill two co-occurring species of Turritella (Turritellidae: Gastropoda) in the Gulf of California. Both naticid and muricid predators, identified by the shapes of their respective boreholes, attacked the thinner-shelled Turritella leucostoma more frequently than the thicker-shelled Turritella gonostoma. Both species were drilled more frequently and more successfully by naticid, as compared to muricid, predators. Naticids drilled prey in the 40- to 70-mm size class most frequently. Prey over 100 mm in length were relatively safe from all drilling predators. Predator size (estimated by borehole diameter) in naticids was correlated with prey size in both species, but for a given-sized prey, predators on T. gonostoma were proportionally larger. There was no size correlation for muricid predators. Unsuccessful attempts (incomplete drilling) were started on the suture more often than were completed holes, for both predator families on both prey species. Naticids began drilling T. leucostoma on the suture significantly less than expected by chance. We looked for possible changes over evolutionary time by analyzing prey shells from Pleistocene and Recent storm deposits. We found no evidence of change in any aspect of implied predatory behavior over the past 100 k.y.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 19 , Issue 4 , Fall 1993 , pp. 476 - 486
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society 

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

Literature Cited

Allmon, W. D. 1988. Ecology of recent turritelline gastropods (Prosobrachia, Turritellidae): current knowledge and paleontological implications. Palaios 3:259–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allmon, W. D., Nieh, J. C., and Norris, R. D. 1990. Drilling and peeling of turritelline gastropods since the late Cretaceous. Paleontology 33:595–611.Google Scholar
Bernat, M., Gaven, C., and Ortleib, L. 1980. Datation de depöts littoraux de dernier interglaciare (Sangamon) sur la cöte orientale du Golfe de Californie, Mexique. Bulletin, Societe Géologique de France 22:219–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boucher, D. H., ed. 1985. The biology of mutualism. Croom Helm, London.Google Scholar
Boucot, A. J. 1990. Evolutionary paleobiology of behavior and coevolution. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Carriker, M. R. 1981. Shell penetration and feeding by naticacean and muricacean gastropods: a synthesis. Malacologia 20:403–422.Google Scholar
Carriker, M. R., and Van Zandt, D. 1972. Predatory behavior of a shell-boring muricid gastropod. Pp. 157–244In Winn, H. E. and Olla, B. L., eds. Behavior of marine animals, vol. 1. Plenum, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carriker, M. R., and Yochelson, E. L. 1968. Recent gastropod boreholes and Ordovician cylindrical borings. United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 593B:1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cleveland, W. S. 1979. Robust locally weighted regression and smoothing scatterplots. Journal of American Statistical Association 74:829–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cleveland, W. S. 1981. Lowess: a program for smoothing scatterplots by robust locally weighted regression. American Statistician 35:54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeAngelis, D. L., Kitchell, J. A., and Post, W. M. 1985. The influence of naticid predation on evolutionary strategies of bivalve prey: conclusions from a model. American Naturalist 126:817–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dudley, E. C., and Vermeij, G. J. 1978. Predation in time and space: drilling in the gastropod Turritella. Paleobiology 4:436–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Endler, J. A. 1991. Interactions between predators and prey. Pp. 169–201In Krebs, J. R. and Davies, N. B., eds. Behavioral ecology, 3d ed.Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Hoffman, A., Pisera, A., and Ryszkiewicz, M. 1974. Predation by muricid and naticid gastropods on the Lower Tortonian molluscs from the Korytnica clays. Acta Geologica Polonica 24:249–260.Google Scholar
Hughes, R. N. 1985. Predatory behavior of Natica unifasciata feeding intertidally on gastropods. Journal of Molluscan Studies 51:331–335.Google Scholar
Kabat, A. R. 1990. Predatory ecology of naticid gastropods with a review of shell boring predation. Malacologia 32:155–193.Google Scholar
Keen, A. M. 1971. Sea shells of tropical western America. Stanford University Press, Stanford.Google Scholar
Kitchell, J. A., Boggs, C. H., Kitchell, J. F., and Rice, J. A. 1981. Prey selection by naticid gastropods: experimental tests and application to the fossil record. Paleobiology 7:533–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LaBarbera, M. 1989. Analyzing body size as a factor in ecology and evolution. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 20:97–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McArdle, B. H. 1987. The structural relationship: regression in biology. Canadian Journal of Zoology 66:2329–2339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, P. A. 1974. Pacific coast shells. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.Google Scholar
Paine, R. T. 1976. Size-limited predation: an observational and experimental approach with the Mytilus-Pisaster interaction. Ecology 57:858–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, A. R. 1981. Do carbonate skeletons limit the rate of body growth? Nature (London) 292:150–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, A. R. 1988. Feeding biology of Ocenebra lurida (Prosobranchia: Muricacea): diet, predator-prey size relations, and attack behavior. Veliger 31:192–203.Google Scholar
Palmer, A. R. 1990. Predator size, prey size, and the scaling of vulnerability: hatchling gastropods vs. barnacles. Ecology 7:759–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pyke, G. H. 1984. Optimal foraging theory: a critical review. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 15:523–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reyment, R. A. 1967. Paleoethology and fossil drilling gastropods. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science 70:33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephens, D. W., and Krebs, J. R. 1986. Foraging theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. D. 1976. Habitats, abundance and diets of Muricacean gastropods at Aldabra Atoll. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 59:155–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, M. L. H., and Himmelman, J. H. 1988. Influence of predation on shell morphology of Buccinum undatum L. on Atlantic coast, Canada. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 115:221–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1978. Biogeography and adaptation: patterns of marine life. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1987. Evolution and escalation. Princeton University Press, Princeton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar