Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T02:26:52.718Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Physiology of Crustacea from difficult environments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 November 2011

A. P. M. Lockwood  and
S. R. L. Bolt
A. P. M. Lockwood
Affiliation:
Department of Oceanography, University of Southampton, Southampton SO9 5NH, U.K.
S. R. L. Bolt
Affiliation:
Department of Oceanography, University of Southampton, Southampton SO9 5NH, U.K.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Examples of the mechanisms involved in body fluid regulation by present-day crustaceans inhabiting variable salinity habitats are described using amphipod gammarids and the isopod Mesidotea (Saduria) entomon as models. Appropriately the species inhabiting the most demanding habitats have the greatest range and most sophisticated regulatory responses. Behaviour, micromorphology and physiology are all involved to a variable degree and, in the examples discussed, responses to salinity change seem finely tuned to countering the problems generated by particular environments. This applies both in the rapid responses to sudden alteration in salinity and to the longer term changes associated with acclimation to a new steady state condition. The isolation of populations and features of derived freshwater races are considered and the implications for the presumed physiological mechanisms of fossil forms discussed.

Keywords

AmphipodaCrustaceagill physiologyIsopodaosmoregulationpermeabilityphysiological responses to salinity changeracial differences
Type
Physiological adaptations in some recent and fossil organisms
Information
Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of The Royal Society of Edinburgh , Volume 80 , Issue 3-4: Environments and Physiology of Fossil Organisms , 1989 , pp. 285 - 292
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1989

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

Bogucki, M. 1932. Recherches sur la regulation osmotique chez l'isopod marin, Mesidotea entomon (1). ARCH INT PHYSIOL 35, 197.Google Scholar
Bolt, S. R. L. 1982. Ecophysiological responses to salinity changes in selected euryhaline amphipods with special reference to Gammarus duebeni. Ph.D Thesis, University of Southampton.Google Scholar
Bolt, S. R. L. 1983. Haemolymph concentrations and apparent permeability in varying salinity conditions of Gammarus duebeni, Chaetogammarus marinus and Gammarus locusta. J EXP BIOL 107, 129–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolt, S. R. L. 1985. Urine clearance rates and apparent permeability of Gammarus duebeni exposed to varying conditions. J EXP BIOL 114, 673–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolt, S. R. L. 1986. Ecological, behavioural and physiological observations on under ice populations of Arctic amphipods associated with salinity anomalies. PROGR UNDERWATER SCI 11, 127–135.Google Scholar
Bolt, S. R. L. in press. Physiological distinctions between ecological and geographically separate forms of Gammarus duebeni (Lilljeborg): Possible evidence for speciation. J EXP BIOLGoogle Scholar
Charlesworth, J. K. 1957. The Quarternary Era, Vol. 2. London and Beccles: Clowes.Google Scholar
Copeland, D. E. & Fitzjarrell, A. T. 1968. The salt absorbing cells in the gills of the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus (Rathbun) with notes on modified mitochondria. Z ZELLFORSCH MIKROSK ANAT 92, 1–22.Google ScholarPubMed
Croghan, P. C. & Lockwood, A. P. M. 1968. Ionic regulation of the Baltic and fresh water races of the isopod Mesidotea entomon (L). J EXP BIOL 48, 141–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davenport, J. 1972. Salinity tolerance and preference in the porcelain crabs Porcellana platycheles and Porcellana longicornis. MAR BEHAV PHYSIOL 1, 123–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawson, M. E. 1982. Aspects of osmoregulation in the amphipod Gammarus duebeni: the effects of changing salinity and some potential pollutants. Ph.D Thesis, University of Southampton.Google Scholar
Dawson, M. E., Morris, R. J. & Lockwood, A. P. M. 1984. Some combined effects of temperature and salinity on water permeability and gill lipid composition in the amphipod Gammarus duebeni. COMP BIOCHEM PHYSIOL 78A, 729–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekman, S. 1940. Die schwedische Verbretung de glazial-marienen Relikte. VERH INT VER LIMNOL 9, 37.Google Scholar
Ekman, S. 1953. Zoogeography of the Sea. London: Sidgwick and Jackson.Google Scholar
Gilles, R. (ed.) 1979. Mechanisms of Osmoregulation in Animals: Maintenance of Cell Volume. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Graham, J. J. 1987. A comparative ultrastructural study of the gill epithelia of four species of gammarid amphipod. M.Sc. Dissertation, University of Southampton.Google Scholar
Gross, W. J. 1957. A behavioural mechanism for osmotic regulation in a semi-terrestrial crab. BIOL BULL 113, 268–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haywood, G. P. 1970. A study of the osmotic changes in the blood and urine of three species of gammarid exposed to varying salinities. M.Sc. dissertation, University of Southampton.Google Scholar
Hynes, H. B. N. 1954. The ecology of Gammarus duebeni Lilljeborg and its occurrence in fresh water in western Britain. J ANIM ECOL 23, 38–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lagerspetz, K. & Mattila, M. 1961. Salinity reactions of some fresh and brackish water crustaceans. BIOL BULL 120, 44–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lincoln, R. J. 1979. British Marine Amphipoda: Gammaridea. London: British Museum of Natural History.Google Scholar
Lockwood, A. P. M. 1961. The urine of Gammarus duebeni and G. pulex. J EXP BIOL 38, 647–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lockwood, A. P. M. 1970. The involvement of sodium transport in the volume regulation of the amphipod crustacean, Gammarus duebeni. J EXP BIOL 53, 737–751.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lockwood, A. P. M. 1976. Physiological adaptation to life in estuaries. In Newell, R. C. (ed.) Adaptation to Environment, pp. 315–392. London: Butterworths.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lockwood, A. P. M., Inman, C. B. E. & Courtnay, T. H. 1973. The influence of environmental salinity on the water fluxes of the amphipod crustacean Gammarus duebeni. J EXP BIOL 58, 137–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lockwood, A. P. M., Croghan, P. C. & Sutcliffe, D. W. 1976. Sodium regulation and adaptation to dilute media in Crustacea as exemplified by the isopod Mesidotea entomon and the amphipod Gammarus duebeni. In Davies, P. Spencer (ed.) Perspectives in Experimental Biology, pp. 93–106. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Lockwood, A. P. M. & Croghan, P. C. 1957. The chloride regulation of the brackish and fresh water races of Mesidotea entomon (L). J EXP BIOL 34, 253–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lockwood, A. P. M. & Inman, M. B. E. 1973. Water uptake and loss in relation to the salinity of the medium in the amphipod crustacean Gammarus duebeni. J EXP BIOL 58, 149–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shires, R. 1988. Ultra-structural studies on Gammarus duebeni duebeni and G. duebeni celticus in relation to the salinity of the environment. M.Sc Dissertation, University of Southampton.Google Scholar
Stock, J. H. & Pinkster, S. 1970. Irish and French freshwater populations of Gammarus duebeni subspecifically distinct from brackish water populations. NATURE LONDON 228, 874–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutcliffe, D. W. 1971. Sodium influx and loss in freshwater and brackish water populations of the amphipod Gammarus duebeni Lilljeborg. J EXP BIOL 54, 25–268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Werntz, H. O. 1963. Osmotic regulation in marine and brackish water gammarids (Amphipoda) BIOL BULL 124, 225–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar