Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T17:15:18.696Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influences of temperature and salinity on asexual budding by hydromedusa Proboscidactyla ornata (Cnidaria: Hydrozoa: Proboscidactylidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

Mariko Kawamura  and
Shin Kubota
Mariko Kawamura*
Affiliation:
Seto Marine Biological Laboratory, Field Science Education and Research Center, Kyoto University, 459 Shirahama, Nishimuro, Wakayama, 649-2211Japan
Shin Kubota
Affiliation:
Seto Marine Biological Laboratory, Field Science Education and Research Center, Kyoto University, 459 Shirahama, Nishimuro, Wakayama, 649-2211Japan
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: M. Kawamura, Seto Marine Biological Laboratory, Field Science Education and Research Center, Kyoto University, 459 Shirahama, Nishimuro, Wakayama, 649-2211, Japan email: kawamuram@fish-u.ac.jp
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

At the head of Tanabe Bay, on the Pacific coast of Japan, dense populations of Proboscidactyla ornata medusae were observed at 24°C, 34 psu from July 2001 to September 2002 (maximum 472.4 individuals m−3). In the laboratory, 288 immature medusae of P. ornata collected from Tanabe Bay in May–June 2006 were cultured individually and fed with asphyxiated Artemia nauplii under 12 experimental conditions (four different temperatures (17°C, 20°C, 23°C and 26°C) combined with three different salinities (28 psu, 31 psu and 34 psu)). For 30 days, 94% of the medusae survived at all conditions. The maximum number of clones produced was 0.32 clones medusa−1 day−1 at 20°C, 34 psu; the number of medusae increased 10.5 times in 30 days. The maturation percentage at 23°C (54.2–58.3%) was higher than at 17°C (12.5–25.0%) and was positively correlated with the number of nauplii ingested. Temperature-specificity of energy usage was observed: 20°C for asexual budding and 23°C for sexual reproduction. The direct relationship between budding and temperature is demonstrated among hydromedusae for the first time in this study. Additionally, the influence of salinity on budding suggests a hypothesis on an advantage of budding at offshore and high saline waters.

Keywords

asexual reproductionmedusan populationmass occurrenceenvironmental factor
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 88 , Special Issue 8: Hydrozoans , December 2008 , pp. 1601 - 1606
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 2008

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

Arai, M.N. (1992) Active and passive factors affecting aggregations of hydromedusae: a review. Scientia Marina 56, 99–108.Google Scholar
Arai, M.N. (2001) Pelagic coelenterates and eutrophication: a review. Hydrobiologia 451, 69–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ballard, L. and Myers, A. (2000) Observations on the seasonal occurrence and abundance of gelatinous zooplankton in Lough Hyne, Co. Cork, south-west Ireland. Biology and Environment: Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 100B, 75–83.Google Scholar
Bouillon, J. (1994) Classe des Hydrozoaires. In Grassé, P.-P. and Doumenc, J. (eds) Traité de zoologie, volume 3 (2). Paris: Masson, pp. 29–416.Google Scholar
Bouillon, J. and Boero, F. (2000) Synopsis of the families and genera of the hydromedusae of the world, with a list of the worldwide species. Thalassia Salentina 24, 47–296.Google Scholar
Brinckmann, A. and Vannucci, M. (1965) On the life-cycle of Proboscidactyla ornata (Hydromedusae, Proboscidactylidae). Pubblicazioni della Stazione Zoologica di Napoli 34, 357–365.Google Scholar
Calder, D.R. (1970) North American record of the hydroid Proboscidactyla ornata (Hydrozoa, Proboscidactylidae). Chesapeake Science 11, 130–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carré, D. and Carré, C. (1990) Complex reproductive cycle in Eucheilota paradoxica (Hydrozoa: Leptomedusae): medusae, polyps and frustules produced from medusa stage. Marine Biology (Berlin) 104, 303–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaplygina, S.F. and Dautova, T.N. (2005) Finding of the hydromedusa Hydractinia minima (Trinci, 1903) (Cnidaria: Hydrozoa: Hydractiniidae) in Peter the Great Bay, Sea of Japan. Russian Journal of Marine Biology 31, 141–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colin, S.P., Costello, J.H., Graham, W.M. and Higgins, J. (2005) Omnivory by the small cosmopolitan hydromedusa Aglaura hemistoma. Limnology and Oceanography 50, 1264–1268.Google Scholar
Costello, J.H. and Mathieu, H.W. (1995) Seasonal abundance of medusae in Eel Pond, Massachusetts, USA during 1990–1991. Journal of Plankton Research 17, 199–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greve, W. (1994) The 1989 German Bight invasion of Muggiaea atlantica. ICES Journal of Marine Science 51, 355–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, L.J., Moeslund, O., Kiørboe, T. and Riisgård, H.U. (2005) Clearance rates of jellyfish and their potential predation impact on zooplankton and fish larvae in a neritic ecosystem (Limfjorden, Denmark). Marine Ecology Progress Series 304, 117–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hargitt, C.W. (1904) The medusae of the Woods Hole region. Bulletin of the Bureau of Fisheries 24, 21–79.Google Scholar
Kitamura, M. (2003) Feeding ecology of jellyfishes. Bulletin of the Plankton Society of Japan 50, 103–109. [In Japanese with English abstract.]Google Scholar
Kitamura, M., Tanaka, Y. and Ishimaru, T. (2003) Coarse scale distributions and community structure of hydromedusae related to water mass structures in two locations of Japanese waters in early summer. Plankton Biology and Ecology 50, 43–54.Google Scholar
Koike, Y., Nakaguchi, Y., Hiraki, K., Takeuchi, T., Kokubo, T. and Ishimaru, T. (1993) Species and concentrations of selenium and nutrients in Tanabe Bay during red tide due to Gymnodinium nagasakiense. Journal of Oceanography 49, 641–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramp, P.L. (1961) Synopsis of the medusae of the world. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 40, 7–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsakis, S. and Conover, R.J. (1991) Abundance and feeding of medusae and their potential impact as predators on other zooplankton in Bedford Basin (Nova Scotia, Canada) during spring. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 48, 1419–1430.Google Scholar
Purcell, J.E and Arai, M.N. (2001) Interactions of pelagic cnidarians and ctenophores with fish: a review. Hydrobiologia 451, 27–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shao, G. and Chang, K. (2004) The removal of jellyfish in maricultural pond. Journal of the Shanghai Fisheries University 13, 75–77. [In Chinese and English abstract.]Google Scholar
Toyokawa, M. and Terazaki, M. (1994) Seasonal variation of medusae and ctenophores in the innermost part of Tokyo Bay. Bulletin of the Plankton Society of Japan 41, 71–75.Google Scholar
Uchida, T. and Sugiura, Y. (1975) On the formation of medusa buds in Proboscidactyla ornata. Publications of the Seto Marine Biological Laboratory 22, 347–354.Google Scholar
Ueno, S. and Mitsutani, A. (1994) Small-scale swarm of a hydrozoan medusa Liriope tetraphylla in Hiroshima Bay, southern Japan. Bulletin of the Plankton Society of Japan 41, 165–166.Google Scholar
Werner, B. (1958) Die Verbreitung und das Jahreszeitliche Auftreten der Anthomeduse Rathkea octopunctata M. Sars sowie die Temperaturabhängigkeit ihrer Entwicktung und Fortpflanzung. Helgoländer Wissenschaftliche Meeresuntersuchungen 6, 137–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar