Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T11:46:53.981Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

All's good in a famine? Hydrobia ulvae as a secondary prey for juveniles of Iceland moonsnails Amauropsis islandica at the White Sea sandflats

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Dmitriy Aristov ,
Marina Varfolomeeva  and
Georgii Puzachenko
Dmitriy Aristov*
Affiliation:
Zoological Institute of Russian Academy of Sciences, Saint-Petersburg, Russia Laboratory of Marine Benthic Ecology and Hydrobiology, Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Marina Varfolomeeva
Affiliation:
Saint-Petersburg State University, Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Georgii Puzachenko
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Marine Benthic Ecology and Hydrobiology, Saint-Petersburg, Russia
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: D. Aristov, Zoological Institute of Russian Academy of Sciences, Saint-Petersburg, Russia email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many size-selective predators switch their diet during ontogeny. At the White Sea, the adult moonsnails Amauropsis islandica feed mostly on Macoma balthica clams. The diet of juveniles was largely unknown. We conducted a field survey and a caging experiment to find out if juvenile moonsnails can prey on Hydrobia ulvae, and whether they prefer this snail to their usual prey. Live molluscs and their intact or perforated shells were collected from 34 sediment cores. We exposed the single-prey cages with 50 Macoma (MP) or 50 Hydrobia (HP) together with five Amauropsis juveniles, as well as the cages where both prey species were in a 25:25 proportion (HMP). While live Hydrobia was more abundant in the natural assemblages, Amauropsis preferred Macoma, as indicated by proportions of perforated shells. The caging experiment produced similar results. Per capita Macoma consumption rate was significantly higher than Hydrobia consumption rate (6.4 ± 0.5 mg day−1 ind.−1vs. 1.4±0.2 mg day−1 ind.−1 in MP and HP respectively). Prey consumption rates in the single-prey treatments were higher than in mixed-prey cages regardless of prey species. Different mechanisms explain this variation: for Hydrobia it is a consequence of the dietary shift, while for Macoma it reflects the ‘floor’ effect in HMP cages, where virtually all Macoma had been drilled by the end of exposure term. While Macoma is the preferable prey of young Amauropsis, Hydrobia can supplement the diet of juveniles when Macoma is scarce in certain locations.

Keywords

caging experimentsontogenetic diet shiftprey switchingboreholesNaticidaepredator-prey interactionsAmauropsis islandicaHydrobia ulvaeMacoma balthicaWhite Sea
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 95 , Issue 8 , December 2015 , pp. 1601 - 1606
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 2015 

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

Agresti, A. and Franklin, C. (2013) Statistics: the art and science of learning from data. 3rd edition. Boston, MA: Pearson.Google Scholar
Alyakrinskaya, I.O. (2002) Morphofunctional properties of nutrition of certain predatory gastropods. Biology Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences 29, 589–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aristov, D.A. (2013) Dynamics of predatory gastropod Amauropsis islandica Müller, 1776 (Naticidae: Pectinibranchia) in tidal zone, Severny Archipelago, 2001–2011. In Koryakin, A.S. (ed) The chronicle of nature of the Kandalaksha Reserve for 2012 (Annual report). Kandalaksha: Kandalaksha Reserve, pp. 93–99. [The chronicle of nature of the Kandalaksha Reserve, Book No. 58, V.2][in Russian]Google Scholar
Aristov, D.A. and Granovitch, A.I. (2011) Ration of predatory mollusk Amauropsis islandica (Müller, 1776) (Caenogastropoda: Naticidae) in the White Sea littoral zone. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta (Ser. 3) 4, 10–18. [in Russian]Google Scholar
Aristov, D.A., Poloskin, A.V. and Zhernakova, D.A. (2003) New aspects of feeding of starfish Asterias rubens in the shallow waters of enclosed inlet, Kandalaksha Bay, White Sea. In Abstracts of V Scientific session of Marine Biological Station (SPbSU). St Petersburg, 6 February 2004. St Petersburg: SPbSU, pp. 36–37. [in Russian]Google Scholar
Artemieva, A.V., Grishankov, A.V., Nikolaeva, M.A., Fokin, M.V., Shunatova, N.N. and Yakovis, E.L. (2004) The role of predatory drilling gastropods in benthic assemblage: evidences from the prey shells. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta (Ser. 3) 4, 5–9. [in Russian].Google Scholar
Berry, A.J. (1982) Predation by Natica maculosa Lamarck (Naticidae: Gastropoda) upon the trochacean gastropod Umbonium vestiarium (L.) on a Malaysian shore. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 64, 71–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breusch, T.S. and Pagan, A.R. (1979) A simple test for heteroscedasticity and random coefficient variation. Econometrica 47, 1287–1294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carriker, M.R. (1981) Shell penetration and feeding by naticacean and muricacean predatory gastropods: a synthesis. Malacologia 20, 403–422.Google Scholar
Chang, W. (2012) R graphics cookbook. Beijing: O'Reilly Media.Google Scholar
Clements, J.C. and Rawlings, T.A. (2014) Ontogenetic shifts in the predatory habits of the Northern Moonsnail (Lunatia heros) on the Northwestern Atlantic Coast. Journal of Shellfish Research 33, 755–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Da Rosa, I., Canavero, A., Maneyro, R. and Camargo, A. (2011) Trophic niche variation and individual specialization in Hypsiboas pulchellus (Duméril and Bibron, 1841) (Anura, Hylidae) from Uruguay. South American Journal of Herpetology 6, 98–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Roos, A.M., Schellekens, T., Van Kooten, T. and Persson, L. (2008) Stage-specific predator species help each other to persist while competing for a single prey. PNAS 105, 13930–13935.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dudley, E.C. and Vermeij, G.J. (1978) Predation in time and space: drilling in the gastropod Turritella. Paleobiology 4, 436–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, D.C. and Huebner, J.D. (1977) Feeding and growth rates of Polinices duplicatus preying on Mya arenaria at Barnstable Harbor, Massachusetts. Ecology 58, 1218–1236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, J. and Weisberg, S. (2011) An R companion to applied regression. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Giaretta, A.A., Araujo, M.S., Medeiros, H.F. and Facure, K.G. (1998) Food habits and ontogenetic diet shifts of the litter dwelling frog Proceratophrys boiei (Wied). Revista Brasileira de Zoologia 15, 385–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golikov, A.N. (1987) Class Gastropoda. In Starobogatov, Y.I. and Naumov, A.D. (eds) Mollusks of the White Sea. Leningrad: Nauka, pp. 41–204. [in Russian]Google Scholar
Hiddink, J.G. (2003) Modelling the adaptive value of intertidal migration and nursery use in the bivalve Macoma balthica. Marine Ecology Progress Series 252, 173–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huelsken, T. (2011) First evidence of drilling predation by Conuber sordidus (Swainson, 1821) (Gastropoda: Naticidae) on soldier crabs (Crustacea: Mictyridae). Molluscan Research 31, 125–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, R.N., Burrows, M.T. and Rogers, S.E.B. (1992) Ontogenetic changes in foraging behaviour of the dogwhelk Nucella lapillus (L.). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 155, 199–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kabat, A.R. (1990) Predatory ecology of naticid gastropods with a review of shell boring predation. Malacologia 32, 155–193.Google Scholar
Kingsley-Smith, P.R., Richardson, C.A. and Seed, R. (2003) Stereotypic and size-selective predation in Polinices pulchellus (Gastropoda: Naticidae) Risso 1826. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 295, 173–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maximovich, N.V., Gerassimova, A.V. and Kunina, T.A. (1993) Production of Macoma balthica L. population in Chupa Bay (the White Sea). P. II. Production. Vestnik LGU, Ser. 3. 1, 3–11. [in Russian]Google Scholar
Moura, T., Figueiredo, I., Farias, I., Serra-Pereira, B., Neves, A., De Fatima Borges, M. and Gordo, L.S. (2008) Ontogenetic dietary shift and feeding strategy of Raja undulata Lacepède, 1802 (Chondrichthyes: Rajidae) on the Portuguese continental shelf. Scienta Marina 72, 311–318.Google Scholar
Olabarria, C., Incera, M., Garrido, J., Rodil, I.F. and Rossi, F. (2009) Intraspecific diet shift in Talitrus saltator inhabiting exposed sandy beaches. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 84, 282–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osman, R.W. and Whitlatch, R.B. (2004) The control of the development of a marine benthic community by predation on recruits. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 311, 117–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, A.R. (1988) Feeding biology of Ocenebra lurida (Prosobranchia: Muricacea): diet, predator-prey size relations and attack behavior. The Veliger 31, 192–203.Google Scholar
Poloskin, A.V. (1995) Total weight and soft tissues weight ratio of some abundant and common mollusks of the White Sea. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta (Ser. 3) 3, 28–31. [in Russian]Google Scholar
Quijon, P.A., Grassle, J.P. and Rosario, J.M. (2007) Naticid snail predation on early post-settlement surfclams (Spisula solidissima) on the inner continental shelf of New Jersey, USA. Marine Biology 160, 873–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quinn, G.G.P. and Keough, M.J. (2002) Experimental design and data analysis for biologists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2014) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
RStudio (2014) RStudio: Integrated development environment for R. Boston, MA:RStudio.Google Scholar
Ruxton, G.D. and Colegrave, N. (2006) Experimental design for the life sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Saidova, Kh.M. and Beklemishev, K.V. (1953) On finding of foraminifers drilled by gastropod fry in the marine sediments. Doklady Academii Nauk SSSR 92, 1061–1063. [in Russian]Google Scholar
Shine, R., Harlow, P.S., Keogh, J.S. and Boeadi (1998) The influence of sex and body size on food habits of a giant tropical snake, Python reticulatus. Functional Ecology 12, 248–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, K.A. (1988) Age-specific profitability and prey choice. Animal Behaviour 36, 613–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vignali, R. and Galleni, L. (1986) Naticid predation on soft bottom bivalves: a study on a beach shell assemblage. Oebalia 13, 157–177.Google Scholar
Werner, E.E. and Gilliam, J.F. (1984) The ontogenetic niche and species interactions in size-structured populations. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 15, 393–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wickham, H. (2009) ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D.S. (1975) The adequacy of body size as a niche difference. American Naturalist 109, 769–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiltse, W.I. (1980) Effects of Polinices duplicatus (Gastropoda: Naticidae) on infaunal community structure at Barnstable Harbor, Massachusetts, USA. Marine Biology 56, 301–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winemiller, K.O. (1989) Ontogenetic diet shifts and resource partitioning among piscivorous fishes in the Venezuelan llanos. Environmental Biology of Fishes 26, 177–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeileis, A. and Hothorn, T. (2002) Diagnostic checking in regression relationships. R News 2, 7–10.Google Scholar