Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T13:29:01.653Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - Body size and suspension feeding

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2009

By
Stuart Humphries
Edited by
Alan G. Hildrew ,
David G. Raffaelli  and
Ronni Edmonds-Brown
Stuart Humphries
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Plant Sciences University of Sheffield
Alan G. Hildrew
Affiliation:
Queen Mary University of London
David G. Raffaelli
Affiliation:
University of York
Ronni Edmonds-Brown
Affiliation:
University of Hertfordshire
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Suspension-feeding animals are ubiquitous in aquatic ecosystems, and all major taxa have members for whom suspension feeding is the main foraging mode. Suspension feeders are often the chief primary consumers in aquatic systems but, because of the diverse nature of the particles they collect, they also contribute significantly via their effects as both secondary consumers and detritivores (Gili & Coma, 1998; Jørgensen, 1966). In removing particulate food from the surrounding water, suspension-feeding organisms act as mediators of energy flux between the photic zone and the deep sea, between continental waters and the benthic zone, and between local systems in freshwaters (Gili & Coma, 1998; Wildish & Kristmanson, 1997; Wotton, 1994). Their role in energy transfer means that they are key components of aquatic ecosystems, representing important pathways for energy flow, and are crucial determinants of the productivity of aquatic environments.

Suspension feeders are characterized by the possession of an organ used to capture suspended particles from the water (feeding structure). The feeding structures utilized by suspension feeders are highly variable, and include appendages bearing hairs, mucus or silk nets, gill rakers and baleen plates, lophophores, tentacles, and ciliated and flagellated cells. Within a feeding structure, individual collecting elements are the first point of contact for food particles. Transport of particles (particle flux) to the feeding structure is achieved by the flow of water, provided either by active pumping or by external flow.

Type
Chapter
Information
Body Size: The Structure and Function of Aquatic Ecosystems , pp. 16 - 32
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2007

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

Abelson, A. & Denny, M. (1997). Settlement of marine organisms in flow. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 28, 317–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abelson, A., Miloh, T. & Loya, Y. (1993). Flow patterns induced by substrata and body morphologies of benthic organisms, and their role in determining availability of food particles. Limnology and Oceanography, 38, 1116–1124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Acuña, J. L. (2001). Pelagic tunicates: why gelatinous? American Naturalist, 158, 100–107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alexander, R. M. (1998). All-time giants: the largest animals and their problems. Palaeontology, 41, 1231–1245.Google Scholar
Allen, J. R. (1998). Suspension feeding in the brittle-star Ophiothrix fragilis: efficiency of particle retention and implications for the use of encounter-rate models. Marine Biology, 132, 383–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anthony, K. R. N. (1997). Prey capture by the sea anemone Metridium senile (L.): effects of body size, flow regime, and upstream neighbors. Biological Bulletin, 192, 73–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berg, H. C. (1983). Random Walks in Biology. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, S. A., Ruxton, G. D., Pickup, R. W. & Humphries, S. (2005). Seston capture by Hydropsyche siltalai and the accuracy of capture efficiency estimates. Freshwater Biology, 50, 113–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardinale, B. J., Palmer, M. A. & Collins, S. L. (2002). Species diversity enhances ecosystem functioning through interspecific facilitation. Nature, 415, 426–428.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chance, M. M. & Craig, D. A. (1986). Hydrodynamics and behaviour of Simuliidae larvae (Diptera). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 64, 1295–1309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheer, A. Y. & Koehl, M. A. R. (1987). Paddles and rakes: fluid flow through bristled appendages of small organisms. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 129, 17–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. E., Pimm, S. L., Yodzis, P. & Saldan, J. (1993). Body sizes of animal predators and animal prey in food webs. Journal of Animal Ecology, 62, 67–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denny, M. W. (1993). Air and Water: the Biology and Physics of Life's Media. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Dudgeon, D. (1987). A laboratory study of optimal behaviour and the costs of net construction by Polycentropus flavomaculatus (Insecta: Trichoptera: Polycentropodidae). Journal of Zoology, London, 211, 121–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckman, J. E. (1990). A model of passive settlement by planktonic larvae onto bottoms of differing roughness. Limnology and Oceanography, 35, 887–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedrichs, M., Graf, G. & Springer, B. (2000). Skimming flow over a simulated polychaete tube lawn at low population densities. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 192, 219–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gili, J. M. & Coma, R. (1998). Benthic suspension feeders: their paramount role in littoral marine food webs. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 13, 316–321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gili, E. & LaBarbera, M. (1998). Hydrodynamic behaviour of hippuritid rudist shells: ecological consequences. Geobios, 22, 137–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, J., Emerson, C. W. & Shumway, S. E. (1993). Orientation, passive transport, and sediment erosion features of the sea scallop Placopecten magellanicus in the benthic boundary layer. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 71, 953–959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harbison, G. R. (1992). The gelatinous inhabitants of the ocean interior. Oceanus, 35, 18–23.Google Scholar
Hentschel, B. T. (1996). Ontogenetic changes in particle-size selection by deposit-feeding spionid polychaetes: the influence of palp size on particle contact. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 206, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jesling, J. (2002). Ultrastructural investigations on the cephalic and metameric nuchal organs of Spio cf. filicornis (Polychaeta, Spionidae). Zoomorphology, 121, 213–220.Google Scholar
Johnson, A. S. (1990). Flow around phoronids: consequences of a neighbor to suspension feeders. Limnology and Oceanography, 35, 1395–1401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, A. S. (1993). Sag-mediated modulated tension in terebellid tentacles exposed to flow. Biological Bulletin, 185, 10–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jørgensen, C. B. (1966). Biology of Suspension Feeding. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Kim, K. & Lasker, H. R. (1998). Allometry of resource capture in colonial cnidarians and constraints on modular growth. Functional Ecology, 12, 646–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koehl, M. A. R. (1983). The morphology and performance of suspension-feeding appendages. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 105, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koehl, M. A. R. (1993). Hairy little legs: feeding, smelling, and swimming at low Reynolds numbers. Contemporary Mathematics, 141, 33–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koehl, M. A. R. (1995). Fluid flow through hair-bearing appendages: feeding, smelling and swimming at low and intermediate Reynolds numbers. In Biological Fluid Dynamics, ed. Ellington, C. P. and Pedley, T. J.. Cambridge: The Company of Biologists Limited, pp. 157–182.Google Scholar
Koehl, M. A. R. (1996). When does morphology matter?Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 27, 501–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koehl, M. A. R. (2000). Consequences of size change during ontogeny and evolution. In Scaling in Biology, ed. Brown, J. H. and West, G. B.. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 67–86.Google Scholar
Koehl, M. A. R. (2001). Transitions in function at low Reynolds number: hair-bearing animal appendages. Mathematical Methods in the Applied Sciences, 24, 1523–1532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LaBarbera, M. (1984). Feeding currents and particle capture mechanisms in suspension feeding animals. American Zoologist, 24, 71–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindegarth, M., Jonsson, P. R. & André, C. (2002). Physical and numerical modeling of the role of hydrodynamic processes on adult-larval interactions of a suspension-feeding bivalve. Journal of Marine Research, 60, 499–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loo, L.-O., Jonsson, P. R., Sköld, M. & Karlsson, Ö. (1996). Passive suspension feeding in Amphiura filiformis (Echinodermata: Ophiuroidea): feeding behaviour in flume flow and potential feeding rate of field populations. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 139, 143–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nachtigall, W. (2001). Some aspects of Reynolds number effects in animals. Mathematical Methods in the Applied Sciences, 24, 1401–1408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nowell, A. R. M. & Church, M. (1979). Turbulent flow in a depth-limited boundary layer. Journal of Geophysical Research, 84, 4816–4824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nowell, A. R. M. & Jumars, P. A. (1984). Flow environments of aquatic benthos. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 15, 303–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okamura, B. (1984). The effects of ambient flow velocity, colony size, and upstream colonies on the feeding success of bryozoa: I. Bugula stolonifera (Ryland), an arborescent species. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 83, 179–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okamura, B. (1985). The effects of ambient flow velocity, colony size, and upstream colonies on the feeding success of bryozoa: II. Conopeum reticulum (Linnaeus), an encrusting species. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 89, 69–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okamura, B. (1988). The influence of neighbors on the feeding of an epifaunal bryozoan. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 120, 105–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okamura, B., Harmelin, J.-G. & Jackson, J. B. C. (2001). Refuges revisited: enemies versus flow and feeding as determinants of sessile animal distribution and form. In Evolutionary Patterns: Growth, Form, and Tempo in the Fossil Record, ed. Jackson, J. B. C., Lidgard, S. & McKinney, F. K.. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 61–93.Google Scholar
Palumbi, S. R. (1986). How body plans limit acclimation: responses of a Demosponge to wave force. Ecology, 67, 208–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pawlik, J. R., Butman, C. A. & Starczak, V. R. (1991). Hydrodynamic facilitation of gregarious settlement of a reef-building tube worm. Science, 251, 421–424.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peters, R. H. (1983). The Ecological Implications of Body Size. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, R. C. J., Petersen, B. M. & Wallace, J. B. (1984). Influence of velocity and food availability on catchnet dimensions of Neureclipsis bimaculata (Trichoptera: Polycentropodidae). Holarctic Ecology, 7, 380–389.Google Scholar
Pratt, M. C. (2004). Effect of zooid spacing on bryozoan feeding success: is competition or facilitation more important? Biological Bulletin, 207, 17–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rex, A., Montebon, F. & Yap, H. T. (1995). Metabolic responses of the scleractinian coral Porites cylindrica Dana to water motion. I. Oxygen flux studies. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 186, 33–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubenstein, D. I. & Koehl, M. A. R. (1977). The mechanisms of filter feeding: some theoretical considerations. American Naturalist, 111, 981–994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruppert, E. E. & Barnes, R. D. (1994). Invertebrate Zoology. Fort Worth: Saunders College Publishing.Google Scholar
Schmidt-Nielsen, K. (1984). Scaling: Why is Animal Size so Important? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sebens, K. P. (1982). The limits to indeterminate growth: an optimal size model applied to passive suspension feeders. Ecology, 63, 209–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sebens, K. P. (1987). The ecology of indeterminate growth in animals. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 18, 371–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shimeta, J. & Jumars, P. A. (1991). Physical mechanisms and rates of particle capture by suspension feeders. Oceanography and Marine Biology Annual Review, 29, 191–257.Google Scholar
Shimeta, J. & Koehl, M. A. R. (1997). Mechanisms of particle selection by tentaculate suspension feeders during encounter, retention, and handling. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 209, 47–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silvester, N. R. (1983). Some hydrodynamic aspects of filter feeding with rectangular-mesh nets. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 103, 265–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, J. S. (2000). The Extended Organism: the Physiology of Animal-Built Structures. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Vanderploeg, H. A. (1994). Zooplankton particle selection and feeding mechanisms. In The Biology of Particles in Aquatic Systems, ed. Wotton, R. S.. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers, pp. 205–234.Google Scholar
Vogel, S. (1994). Life in Moving Fluids. Princeton, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Warren, P. H. & Lawton, J. H. (1987). Invertebrate predator–prey body size relationships: an explanation for upper triangular food webs and patterns in food web structure? Oecologia, 74, 231–235.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
White, C. R. & Seymour, R. S. (2005) Allometric scaling of mammalian metabolism. Journal of Experimental Biology, 208, 1611–1619.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wildish, D. & Kristmanson, D. (1997). Benthic Suspension Feeders and Flow. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D. S. (1973). Food size selection among copepods. Ecology, 54, 909–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wotton, R. S. (1994). The Biology of Particles in Aquatic Systems. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers.Google Scholar
Wotton, R. S., Malmqvist, B. & Leonardsson, K. (2003). Expanding traditional views on suspension feeders – quantifying their roles as ecosystem engineers. Oikos, 101, 441–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×