Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T02:43:34.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The attractive factor of intertidal sands to Protodrilus symbioticus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

John S. Gray
John S. Gray
Affiliation:
Marine Science Laboratories, Menai Bridge, Anglesey
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In simple choice experiments Protodrilus symbioticus Giard, an interstitial archiannelid, was shown to prefer the sand from its habitat in the natural state to the same sand altered by various physical or chemical treatments. The attractiveness of a sand was measured as the ratio of the number of Protodrilus entering the experimentally treated sand to the number entering the natural sand in simple or multiple choice experiments.

The attractiveness of natural sand to P. symbioticus could be destroyed almost completely by acid cleaning, by heating in water above 50° C or by drying at any temperature.

Treating attractive sand with formalin or cetyltrimethylammonium bromide rendered it about half as attractive as before treatment. Heating natural sand in water to 40°C and keeping it in fresh water for 18 h had no effect on the attractiveness. Sands that have been made unattractive by acid cleaning or drying can be restored to an attractive state by soaking in sea water. Typically acidcleaned sands recovered up to half and dried sands almost the whole of the attractiveness.

Inoculation of naturally occurring sand bacteria to highly unattractive acid-cleaned sand restores the attractiveness completely. Autoclaved sand to which a culture of Phaeodactylum had been added was preferred to sand treated with cultures of Dunaniella and Chlorella. An ordinary culture of Phaeodactylum contaminated by bacteria restored the attractiveness to autoclaved sands more effectively than a bacteria-free culture.

Sands restored by inocula of natural sand bacteria, soil bacteria and Pseudomonas sp. were preferred to those treated with Corynebacterium erythogenes, Flavobacterium sp. and Serratia marinorubra and these were preferred to control sands kept in sterile sea water.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 46 , Issue 3 , October 1966 , pp. 627 - 645
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1966

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

Boaden, P.J.S. 1962. Colonization of graded sand by an interstitial fauna. Cah. Biol. mar., T. 3, pp. 245–28.Google Scholar
Boaden, P. J. S. 1963. Behaviour and distribution of the archiannelid Trilobodrilus heideri. J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K., Vol. 43, pp. 237–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crisp, D. J. 1956. Surface chemistry, a factor in the settlement of marine invertebrate larvae. Botanica gothoburgensia, Bd. 3, pp. 51–65.Google Scholar
Davies, O. L. 1954. The Design and Analysis of Industrial Experiments. 636 pp. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
Day, J. H. & Wilson, D. P. 1934. On the relation of the substratum to the metamorphosis of Scolecolepis fulginosa (Claparède). J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K., Vol. 19, pp. 655–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R. A. & Yates, F. 1953. Statistical Tables for Biological, Agricultural and Medical Research. 146 pp. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
Gray, J. S. 1965. The behaviour of Protodrilus symbioticus (Giard) in temperature gradients. J. anim. Ecol., Vol. 34, pp. 455–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, J. S. 1966a. The response of Protodrilus symbioticus (Giard), (Archiannelida), to light. J. Anim. Ecol., Vol. 35, pp. 55–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, J. S. 1966b. Selection of sands by Protodrilus symbioticus Giard. Veroff. Inst. Meeresforsch., Bd. 2, pp. 105–16.Google Scholar
Jägersten, G. 1940. Die Abhängigkeit der Metamorphose von Substrat des Biotops bei Protodrilus. Ark. Zool., Bd. 32, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
Knight-Jones, E. W. 1953. Laboratory experiments on gregariousness during settling in Balanus balanoides and other barnacles. J. exp. Biol., Vol. 30, pp. 584–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meadows, P. S. M. 1964. Experiments on substrate selection by Corophium species; films and bacteria on sand particles. J. exp. Biol., Vol. 41, pp. 499–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennak, R. W. 1951. Comparative ecology of the interstitial fauna of fresh water and marine beaches. Année, biol., T. 27, pp. 449–80.Google Scholar
Salton, M. R. J. & Alexander, A. E. 1950. The release of cellular constituents from Staphylococcus aureus treated with cetyltrimethylammonium bromide. J. gen. Microbiol., Vol. 4, pp. 2–4.Google Scholar
Scheltema, R. S. 1961. Metamorphosis of the veliger larvae of Nassarius obsoletus (Gastropoda) in response to bottom sediment. Biol. Bull. mar. biol. Lab., Woods Hole, Vol. 120, pp. 92–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swedmark, B. 1954. étude du développement larvaire et remarques sur la morphologie de Protodrilus symbioticus Giard (Archiannélides). Ark. Zool., Bd. 6, pp. 511–22.Google Scholar
Wieser, W. 1956. Factors influencing the choice of substratum in Cumella vulgaris Hart (Crustacea, Cumacea). Limnol. Oceanogr., Vol. 1, pp. 274–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wieser, W. 1959. The effect of grain size on the distribution of small invertebrates inhabiting the beaches of Puget Sound. Limnol. Oceanogr., Vol. 4, pp. 181–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D. P. 1932. On the Mitraria larvae of Owenia fusiformis Delle Chiaje. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B, Vol. 221, pp. 231–334.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. P. 1937. The influence of the substratum on the metamorphosis of Notomastus larvae. J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K., Vol. 22, pp. 227–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D. P. 1952. The influence of the nature of the substratum on the metamorphosis of the larvae of marine animals, especially of Ophelia bicornis Savigny. Ann. Inst. océanogr. Monaco, T. 27, pp. 49–156.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. P. 1953a. The settlement of Ophelia bicornis Savigny larvae. The 1951 experiments. J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K., Vol. 31, pp. 413–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D. P. 1953b. The settlement of Ophelia bicornis Savigny larvae. The 1952 experiments. J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K., Vol. 32, pp. 209–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D. P. 1954. The attractive factor in the settlement of Ophelia bicornis Savigny. J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K., Vol. 33, pp. 361–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D. P. 1955. The role of micro-organisms in the settlement of Ophelia bicornis Savigny. J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K., Vol. 34, pp. 531–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar