Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T04:41:38.816Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Predation by the sea urchin Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis on capsular egg masses of the whelk Buccinum undatum

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 June 2008

Clement P. Dumont ,
Jean-Sebastien Roy  and
John H. Himmelman
Clement P. Dumont*
Affiliation:
Département de Biologie and Québec-Océan, Université Laval, Québec GIK7P4, Canada Hopkins Marine Station, Stanford University, Oceanview Boulevard, Pacific Grove, CA 93950-3094, USA
Jean-Sebastien Roy
Affiliation:
Département de Biologie and Québec-Océan, Université Laval, Québec GIK7P4, Canada
John H. Himmelman
Affiliation:
Département de Biologie and Québec-Océan, Université Laval, Québec GIK7P4, Canada
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: Clement P. Dumont Département de Biologie and Québec-OcéanUniversité Laval, Québec GIK7P4, Canada email: cdumont@stanford.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We evaluated sea urchin Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis predation on egg masses of the whelk Buccinum undatum. The urchin actively grazes on the egg masses, even as they are being deposited on the bottom. Whelks preferentially lay their egg masses on vertical areas where urchin densities are 4-fold less than on flat areas. This strategy is advantageous, as experimental trials showed that the loss in the mass of capsules was 4 fewer on walls than on flat areas. Nevertheless, a high proportion of egg masses on walls show damage from predation. Urchins provided with egg masses in the laboratory, ingested the capsules at a steady rate over a 9-d period (5 urchins ingested 2.8 g.d-1). Urchins provided agar discs that included a preferred alga and whelk capsule walls ingested the discs at a rate that was half that observed for discs that only included the alga. Discs that included the preferred alga and capsule contents were eaten at the same rate as discs that only included the alga. Thus, capsule walls, but not the capsule contents, provide a defence against urchin predation. Laying aggregate egg masses likely provides only a limited advantage, as the attachment surface does not increase with the number of egg masses deposited together, so the risk of detachment increases. Consideration of the interactions between urchins and whelks is important in managing the fisheries of the two species.

Keywords

predationsea urchinStrongylocentrotus droebrachiensiscapsular egg massesBuccinum undatum
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 88 , Issue 5 , August 2008 , pp. 1025 - 1031
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

Benkendorff, K. (1999) Bioactive molluscan resources and their conservation: biological and chemical studies on the egg masses of marine molluscs. PhD thesis, Wollongong University, Australia, pp. 553.Google Scholar
Benkendorff, K., Davis, A.R. and Bremner, J.B. (2001) Chemical defense in the egg masses of benthic invertebrates: an assessment of antibacterial activity in 39 mollusks and 4 polychaetes. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 78, 109–118.Google Scholar
Brenchley, G.A. (1982) Predation on encapsulated larvae by adults: effects of introduced species on the gastropod Ilyanassa obsoleta. Marine Ecology Progress Series 9, 255–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briscoe, C.S. and Sebens, K.P. (1988) Omnivory in Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis (Müller) (Echinoidermata: Echinodea): predation on a subtidal mussels. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 115, 1–24.Google Scholar
Browman, H.I. and Stergiou, K.I. (eds) (2004) Perspectives on ecosystem-based approaches to the management of marine resources. Marine Ecology Progress Series 274, 269–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cadee, G.C., Boon, J.P., Fischer, C.V., Mensink, B.P. and TenHallers-Tjabbes, C.C. (1995) Why the whelk (Buccinum undatum) has become extinct in the Dutch Wadden Sea. Netherlands Journal of Sea Research 34, 337–339.Google Scholar
D'Asaro, C.N. (1993) Gunnar Thorson's world-wide collection of prosobranch egg capsules: nassariidae. Ophelia 38, 149–215.Google Scholar
Drolet, D., Himmelman, J.H. and Rochette, R. (2004) Trade-off in the use of refuges by the ophiuroid Ophiopholis aculeata related to contrasting effects of substratum complexity on the risk of predation from two predators. Marine Ecology Progress Series 284, 173–183.Google Scholar
Dumont, C.P., Himmelman, J.H. and Russell, M.P. (2007) Random movement pattern of the sea urchin Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 340, 80–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fahy, E. (2001) Conflict between two inshore fisheries: for whelk (Buccinum undatum) and brown crab (Cancer pagurus), in the southwest Irish Sea. Hydrobiologia 465, 73–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FAO Fishery Information (2006) Fishery statistics. Volume 98/1. FAO: Rome, pp. 560.Google Scholar
Gagnon, P., Himmelman, J.H. and Johnson, L.E. (2004) Temporal variation in community interfaces: kelp bed boundary dynamics adjacent to persistent urchin barrens. Marine Biology 144, 1191–1203.Google Scholar
Gagnon, P., Johnson, L.E. and Himmelman, J.H. (2005) Kelp patch dynamics in the face of intense herbivory: stability of Agarum clathratum (Phaephyta) stands and associated flora on urchin barrens. Journal of Phycology 41, 489–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaymer, C.F., Dutil, C. and Himmelman, J.H. (2004) Prey selection and predatory impact of four major sea stars on a soft bottom subtidal community. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 313, 353–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, L.E. and Hutchinson, S. (1988) Egg capsule structure and hatching mechanism of Ocenebra erinacea (L.) (Prosobranchia: Muricidae). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 119, 269–283.Google Scholar
Himmelman, J.H., Cardinal, A. and Bourget, E. (1983) Community development following removal of urchins, Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis, from the rocky subtidal zone of the St Lawrence estuary, Eastern Canada. Oecologia 59, 27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Himmelman, J.H. and Hamel, J.R. (1993) Diet, behaviour and reproduction of the whelk Buccinum undatum in the northern Gulf of St Lawrence, eastern Canada. Marine Biology 116, 423–430.Google Scholar
Himmelman, J.H. and Steele, D.H. (1971) Foods and predators of the green sea urchin Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis in Newfoundland waters. Marine Biology 9, 315–322.Google Scholar
Hunt, S. (1966) Carbohydrate and amino-acid composition of the egg capsule of the whelk Buccinum undatum L. Nature 210, 436–437.Google Scholar
Kideys, A.E., Nash, R. and Hartnoll, R.G. (1993) Reproductive cycle and energetic cost of reproduction of the neogastropod Buccinum undatum in the Irish Sea. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 73, 391–403.Google Scholar
Lauzon-Guay, J.-S., Scheibling, R.E. and Barbeau, M.A. (2006) Movement patterns in the green sea urchin, Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 86, 167–174.Google Scholar
Legault, C. and Himmelman, J.H. (1993) Relation between escape behaviour of benthic marine-invertebrates and the risk of predation. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 170, 55–74.Google Scholar
Levin, L.A. and Bridges, T.S. (1995) Pattern and diversity in reproduction and development. In McEdward, L.R. (ed.) Ecology of marine invertebrate larvae. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press, pp. 1–48.Google Scholar
Martel, A., Larrivée, D.H. and Himmelman, J.H. (1986a) Behaviour and timing of copulation and egg-laying in the neogastropod Buccinum undatum L. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 96, 27–42.Google Scholar
Martel, A., Larrivee, D.H., Klein, K.R. and Himmelman, J.H. (1986b) Reproductive-cycle and seasonal feeding-activity of the neogastropod Buccinum undatum. Marine Biology 92, 211–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nestler, E.C. and Harris, L.G. (1994) The importance of omnivory in Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis (Müller) in the Gulf of Maine. In David, B., Guille, A., Féral, J.-P. and Roux, M. (eds) Echinoderms through time. Proceedings of the Eighth International Echinoderm Conference. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema, pp. 813–818.Google Scholar
Orians, G.H. and Janzen, D.H. (1974) Why embryos are so tasty? American Naturalist 108, 581–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pechenik, J. (1979) Role of encapsulation in invertebrate life histories. American Naturalist 114, 859–870.Google Scholar
Pechenik, J. (1982) Ability of some gastropod egg capsules to protect against low-salinity stress. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 3, 195–108.Google Scholar
Pechenik, J.A. (1999) On the advantages and disadvantages of larval stages in benthic marine invertebrate life cycles. Marine Ecology Progress Series 177, 269–297.Google Scholar
Podolsky, R.D. and Hoffman, G.E. (1998) Embryo development during tide-related thermal stress: evidence of a protective role for heat-shock proteins. American Zoologist 38, 186.Google Scholar
Przelawski, R., Davis, A.R. and Benkendorff, K. (2004) Effects of ultraviolet radiation and visible light on the development of encapsulated molluscan embryos. Marine Ecology Progress Series 268, 151–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawlings, T. (1990) Associations between egg capsule morphology and predation among populations of the marine gastropod, Nucella emarginata. Biological Bulletin. Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole 179, 312–325.Google Scholar
Rawlings, T. (1996) Shields against ultraviolet radiation: an additional protective role for the egg capsules of benthic marine gastropods. Marine Ecology Progress Series 136, 81–95.Google Scholar
Rawlings, T.A. (1994) Encapsulation of eggs by marine gastropods: effect of variation in capsule form on the vulnerability of embryos to predation. Evolution 48, 1301–1313.Google ScholarPubMed
Rawlings, T.A. (1999) Adaptations to physical stresses in the intertidal zone: the egg capsules of neogastropod molluscs. American Zoologist 39, 230–243.Google Scholar
Rivest, B.R. (1986) Extra-embryonic nutrition in the prosobranch gastropod Irosalpinx cinerea (Say, 1822). Bulletin of Marine Science 39, 498–505.Google Scholar
Spight, T.M. (1977) Do intertidal snails spawn in the right places. Evolution 31, 682–691.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Valentinsson, D. (2002) Reproductive cycle and maternal effects on offspring size and number in the neogastropod Buccinum undatum (L.). Marine Biology 140, 1139–1147.Google Scholar