Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T12:15:36.350Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Diet and feeding of the musky octopus, Eledone moschata, in the northern Adriatic Sea

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2009

Svjetlana Krstulović Šifner  and
Nedo Vrgoč
Svjetlana Krstulović Šifner*
Affiliation:
Institute of Oceanography and Fisheries Split, Šetalište Ivana Meštrovića 63, 21000 Split, Croatia
Nedo Vrgoč
Affiliation:
Institute of Oceanography and Fisheries Split, Šetalište Ivana Meštrovića 63, 21000 Split, Croatia
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: Svjetlana Krstulović Šifner, Institute of Oceanography and Fisheries Split, Šetalište Ivana Meštrovića 63, 21000 Split, Croatia email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents data on the diet of the musky octopus, Eledone moschata, caught with bottom-trawl nets in the northern Adriatic Sea from October 2001 to June 2003. A total of 1226 stomachs were examined, out of which 34.8% were empty. Several indices were used to describe the diet of the species. Crustaceans were found to be the most important prey category and their remains occurred in 65.0% of stomachs with food. Fish and cephalopods were present in 37.8% and 21.8% of stomachs, respectively. Differences in food composition between smaller and larger individuals were observed. In specimens with mantle lengths up to 80 mm crustaceans dominated, occurring in 79.4% of examined stomachs. Important prey categories of the larger specimens (>80 mm) were crustaceans, fish and cephalopods. No significant differences in the diet between males and females were found. Cannibalism occurred only occasionally and at larger sizes. Seasonal changes in the diet were observed, but seasonality did not seem to be a limiting factor in the feeding intensity of the species. Results indicate that the observed differences in the diet composition and feeding dynamics of the musky octopus are primarily due to the animals' changes in size.

Keywords

dietfeedingmusky octopusEledone moschatanorthern Adriatic Sea
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 89 , Issue 2 , March 2009 , pp. 413 - 419
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 2009

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

Belcari, P., Tserpes, G., Gonzalez, M., Lefkaditou, E., Marčeta, B., Piccinetti Manfrin, G. and Souplet, A. (2002) Distribution and abundance of Eledone cirrhosa (Lamarck, 1798) and Eledone moschata (Lamarck, 1798) (Cephalopoda: Octopoda) in the Mediterranean Sea. Scientia Marina 66, 143–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertrand, J. (1995) Campagnes internationales de chalutage démersal en Méditerranée (MEDITS) Campagne 1994 Manuel des protocoles. Rapport de Contract EC-IFREMER-IEO-SIBM-NCMR (MED 93:020 018 006004): 1–27.Google Scholar
Boletzky, Sv. (1975) Le développement d'Eledone moschata (Mollusca, Cephalopoda) élevée au laboratoire. Bulletin de la Société Zoologique de France 100, 361–367.Google Scholar
Boucher-Rodoni, R., Bouchard-Camou, E. and Mangold, K. (1987) Feeding and digestion. In Boyle, P.R. (ed.) Cephalopod life cycles, Volume 2. London: Academic Press, pp. 85–108.Google Scholar
Boyle, P.R. and Knobloch, D. (1981) Hole boring of crustacean prey by the octopus Eledone cirrhosa (Mollusca: Cephalopoda). Journal of Zoology 193, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casali, P., Manfrin Piccinetti, G. and Soro, S. (1998) Distribuzione di cephalopodi in alto e medio Adriatico. Biologia Marina Mediterranea 5, 307–317.Google Scholar
Castro, B. and Guerra, A. (1990) The diet of Sepia officinalis (Linnaeus, 1758) and Sepia elegans (D'Orbigny, 1835) (Cephalopoda, Sepioidea) from the Ria de Vigo (NW Spain). Scientia Marina 54, 375–388.Google Scholar
Clarke, M.A. (1986) A handbook for the identification of cephalopod beaks. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 273 pp.Google Scholar
Coelho, M., Domingues, P., Balguerias, E., Fernandez, M. and Andrade, J.P. (1997) A comparative study of diet of Loligo vulgaris (Lamarck, 1799) (Mollusca: Cephalopoda) from the south coast of Portugal and the Saharan Bank (Central-East Atlantic). Fisheries Research 29, 245–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, M.A., De Grave, S., Lordan, C., Burnell, G.M. and Rodhouse, P.G. (1994) Diet of the squid Loligo forbesi Steenstrup (Cephalopoda: Loliginidae) in Irish waters. ICES Journal of Marine Science 51, 337–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cortez, T., Castro, B.G. and Guerra, A. (1995) Feeding dynamics of Octopus mimus (Mollusca: Cephalopoda) in the northern Chile waters. Marine Biology 123, 497–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ezzeddine-Najai, S. (1997) Sexual maturation in Eledone moschata (Cephalopoda, Octopoda) from the gulf of Gabes (Tunisia, eastern Mediterranean). Vie et Milieu 47, 69–76.Google Scholar
FAO (2003) Fishery statistics. Catches and landings. FAO Fisheries Series No. 65. FAO Statistics Series No. 175, Volume 93.Google Scholar
Guerra, A. (1978) Sobre la alimentacion y comportamiento alimentario de Octopus vulgaris. Investigacion Pesquera 42, 351–364.Google Scholar
Hatanaka, H. (1979) Studies on the fisheries biology of common octopus off the northwest coast of Africa. Bulletin of the Far Seas Fisheries Research Laboratory 17, 13–124.Google Scholar
Hureau, J.C. (1970) Biologie comparée de quelques poissons antarctiques (Nototheniidae). Bulletin de l'Institut Océanographique Monaco 68, 1–244.Google Scholar
Hyslop, E.J. (1980) Stomach contents analysis—a review of methods and their application. Journal of Fish Biology 17, 411–429.Google Scholar
Krstulović Šifner, S. (2004) Population dynamics of the musky octopus, Eledone moschata (Lamarck, 1798), in the Adriatic Sea. PhD thesis. University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia.Google Scholar
Krstulović Šifner, S., Dadić, V. and Vrgoč, N. (2004) GIS presentation of distribution of two eledonid species in the Adriatic Sea. In Kereković, D. (ed.) GIS in research and practice. Zagreb: Hrvatski Informatički Zbor, pp. 124–131.Google Scholar
Krstulovic Šifner, S., Lefkaditou, E., Ungaro, N., Ceriola, L., Osmani, K., Kavadas, S. and Vrgoč, N. (2005) Composition and distribution of the cephalopod fauna in the eastern Adriatic and eastern Ionian Sea. Israel Journal of Zoology 51, 315–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lefkaditou, E., Siapatis, A. and Papaconstantinou, C. (1998) Seasonal and spatial changes in the abundance and distribution of Eledone moschata (Cephalopoda: Octopoda), in the South Aegean Sea (Eastern Mediterranean). International Council for Exploration of the Sea. CM 1998/M: 44, 8 pp.Google Scholar
Lefkaditou, E., Leodarakis, P., Papaconstantinou, P.C. and Tsangridis, A. (2001) Eledonids exploited in the Thracian Sea: preliminary analysis of stock structure based on trawlers landings. Rapport et Procès-Verbaux des Réunions. Commision Internationale pour l'Exploration Scientifique de la Mer Méditerranée 36, 294–294.Google Scholar
Manfrin-Piccinetti, G. and Rizzoli, M. (1984) Data obtained during the Pipeta expeditions, on the biology of Eledone moschata (Lam.) in the Adriatic. FAO Fisheries Report 290, 139–141.Google Scholar
Mangold, K. (1983a) Eledone moschata. In Boyle, P.R. (ed.) Cephalopod life cycles, Volume 1. London: Academic Press, pp. 387–400.Google Scholar
Mangold, K. (1983b) Food, feeding and growth in cephalopods. In Stone, D.E. (ed.) Memoirs of the National Museum of Victoria. Melbourne, pp. 81–93.Google Scholar
Mangold-Wirz, K. (1963) Biologie des céphalopods bentiques et nectonique de la Mer Catalane. Vie et Milieu 13, 83–91.Google Scholar
Mangold-Wirz, K. and Boucher-Rodoni, R. (1973) Nutrition et croissance de trois Octopodidés Méditerranéens. Etude préliminaire. Rapport et Procès-Verbaux des Réunions. Commision Internationale pour l'Exploration Scientifique de la Mer Méditerranée 21, 789–791.Google Scholar
Nixon, M. (1987) Cephalopod diets. In Boyle, P.R. (ed.) Cephalopod life bycles, Volume 2. London: Academic Press, pp. 201–219.Google Scholar
Nixon, M. and Budelmann, B.U. (1984) Scale-worms—occasional food of octopus. Journal of Molluscan Studies 50, 39–42.Google Scholar
Repetto, N., Wurtz, M., Palumbo, F., Minetti, D., Rebora, F., Costa, M. and Cavassa, M. (1998) Experimental rearing of Eledone cirrhosa and Eledone moschata. Biologia Marina Mediterranea 5, 1293–1295.Google Scholar
Roper, C.F.E., Sweeney, M.J. and Nauen, C.E. (1984) FAO species catalogue. Volume 3. Cephalopods of the world. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of species of interest to fisheries. FAO Fisheries Synopsis (125) 3, 1–277.Google Scholar
Salman, A., Katagan, T. and Gucu, A.C. (2000) The distribution and fishing of two Mediterranean Eledone spp. (Octopoda: Cephalopoda) in the Aegean Sea. Turkish Journal of Zooogy 24, 165–171.Google Scholar
Sanchez, P. (1981) Regime alimentaire d'Eledone cirrosa (Lamarck, 1798) (Mollusca, Cephalopoda) dans la Mer Catalane. Rapport et Procès-Verbaux des Réunions. Commision Internationale pour l'Exploration Scientifique de la Mer Méditerranée 27, 209–212.Google Scholar
Şen, H. (2007) Food preferences of Eledone moschata Lamarck, 1799 (Cephalopoda: Octopodidae) in Captive Conditions. International Journal of Natural and Engineering Sciences 1, 29–31.Google Scholar
Silva, L., Ramos, F. and Sobrino, I. (2004) Reproductive biology of Eledone moschata (Cephalopoda: Octopodidae) in the Gulf of Cadiz (south-western Spain, ICES Division IXa). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 84, 1221–1226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sokal, R. and Rohlf, F. (1969) Biometry. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
Soro, S. and Piccinetti Manfrin, G. (1989) Biologia e pesca di Cephalopodi in Adriatico. Nova Thalassia 10, 493–498.Google Scholar
Zander, C.D. (1982) Feeding ecology of littoral gobiid and blennioid fish of the Banyuls area (Mediterranean Sea). I. Main food and trophic dimension of niche and ecotope. Vie et Milieu 32, 1–10.Google Scholar