Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T03:12:37.247Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Colonization of depopulated crinoids by symbionts: who comes from the bottom and who from the water column?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2015

E.S. Mekhova ,
P.Y. Dgebuadze ,
V.N. Mikheev  and
T.A. Britayev
E.S. Mekhova
Affiliation:
A.N. Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution, Russian Academy of Sciences, 119071, Leninskiy prospekt, 33, Moscow, Russia
P.Y. Dgebuadze*
Affiliation:
A.N. Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution, Russian Academy of Sciences, 119071, Leninskiy prospekt, 33, Moscow, Russia
V.N. Mikheev
Affiliation:
A.N. Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution, Russian Academy of Sciences, 119071, Leninskiy prospekt, 33, Moscow, Russia
T.A. Britayev
Affiliation:
A.N. Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution, Russian Academy of Sciences, 119071, Leninskiy prospekt, 33, Moscow, Russia
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: P.Y. Dgebuadze, A.N. Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution, Russian Academy of Sciences, 119071, Leninskiy prospekt, 33, Moscow, Russia email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Previous experiments with the comatulid Himerometra robustipinna (Carpenter, 1881) demonstrated intensive host-to-host migration processes for almost all symbiotic species both within host aggregations and among hosts separated by several metres. The aim of this study was to check the ability of symbionts to complete long-distance migrations, by means of two in situ experiments which depopulated the crinoid host. Two different sets of field experiments were set up: exposure of depopulated crinoids (set 1) on stony ‘islands’ isolated from native crinoid assemblages by sandy substrate, and (set 2) in cages suspended in the water column. Hosts from set 1 were exposed for 1, 2, 3 and 4 weeks to assess whether substrate has an influence on the symbionts' long-distance migrations. In set 2 cages were exposed for 10–11 days, aiming to check whether symbionts were able to disperse through the water column with currents. These experiments allow the conclusion that post-settled symbionts can actively migrate among their hosts. Symbionts are able to reach their hosts by employing two different ‘transport corridors’, by drifting or swimming in water column, and by moving on the bottom. Comparison of experimental results allows the division of symbionts into two conventional groups according to the dispersal ability of their post-settled stages: (1) species able to complete long-distance migrations, (2) species unable to migrate or having limited dispersal ability. The finding of the free-living shrimp Periclimenes diversipes Kemp, 1922 in set 2 raises the question about the factors that affect such a high degree of specialization of crinoid assemblages.

Keywords

symbiotic assemblagescolonizationcrinoidsSouth Vietnam
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 95 , Issue 8 , December 2015 , pp. 1607 - 1612
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

Britayev, T.A. (1991) Life cycle of the symbiotic scaleworm Arctonoe vittata (Polychaeta: Polynoidae). Ophelia (Suppl.) 5, 305–312.Google Scholar
Britayev, T.A. and Mekhova, E.S. (2011) Assessment of hidden diversity of crinoids and their symbionts in the Bay of Nhatrang, Vietnam. Organisms, Diversity and Evolution 11, 275–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Britayev, T.A. and Mekhova, E.S. (2014) Do symbiotic polychaetes migrate from host to host? Memoirs of Museum Victoria 71, 21–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruce, A.J. (1972) A review of information upon the coral hosts of commensal shrimps of the subfamily Pontoniinae, Kingsley, 1878 (Crustacea, Decapoda, Palaemonidae). Proceedings of the Symposium on Corals and Coral Reefs, 1969 Marine Biological Association, India, pp. 399–418.Google Scholar
Castro, P. (1978) Movements between corals colonies in Trapezia ferruginia (Crustacea: Brachyura), an obligate symbiont of scleractinian corals. Marine Biology 46, 237–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Bruyn, C., Rigaud, T., David, B. and De Ridder, C. (2009) Symbiosis between the pea crab Dissodactylus primitivus and its echinoid host Meoma ventricosa: potential consequences for the crab mating system. Marine Ecology Progress Series 375, 173–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deheyn, D., Lyskin, S.A. and Eeckhaut, I. (2006) Assemblages of symbionts in tropical shallow-water crinoids and assessment of symbionts’ host specificity. Symbiosis 42, 161–168.Google Scholar
Dgebuadze, P.Yu., Mehova, E.S. and Britayev, T.A. (2012) Recolonization of the Himerometra robustipinna (Himerometridae, Crinoidea) by macrosymbionts: an in situ experiment. Symbiosis 58, 253–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolmatov, I.Yu., Bobrovskaya, N.V. and Girich, A.S. (2014) Echinoderms as model objects for study of regeneration mechanisms. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta 3, 96–112. [in Russian]Google Scholar
Glynn, P.W., Stewart, R. and McCosker, J. (1972) Pacific coral reefs of Panama: structure, distribution, and predators. Geologische Rundschau 61, 483–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, H.D., Rittschof, D. and Jeng, M.S. (2005) Multispecies associations of macrosymbionts on the comatulid crinoids Comanthina schlegeli (Carpenter) in Southern Taiwan. Symbiosis 39, 47–51.Google Scholar
Lanterbecq, D., Bleidorn, C., Michel, S. and Eeckhaut, I. (2008) Locomotion and fine structure of parapodia in Myzostoma cirriferum (Myzostomida). Zoomorphology 127, 59–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsden, J.R. (1987) Coral preference behaviour by planktotrophic larvae of Spirobranchus giganteus corniculatus (Serpulidae: Polychaeta). Coral Reefs 6, 71–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mekhova, E.S. and Britayev, T.A. (2012) Feather stars (Crinoidea, Comatulida) of Nhatrang Bay, Vietnam: fauna, habitat and symbionts. In Britayev, T.A. and Pavlov, D.S. (eds) Benthic fauna of the Bay of Nhatrang, Southern Vietnam. Volume 2. Moscow: KMK Press, pp. 447–478.Google Scholar
Morton, B. and Mladenov, P.V. (1992) The associates of Tropiometra afra-macrodiscus (Echinodermata: Crinoidea) in Hong Kong. In Morton, B. (ed.) The marine flora and fauna of Hong Kong and southern China III. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, pp. 431–438.Google Scholar
Pernet, B. (2000) Reproduction and development of three symbiotic scale worms (Polychaeta: Polynoidae). Invertebrate Biology 119, 45–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preston, N.P. and Doherty, P.J. (1990) Cross-shelf patterns in the community structure of coral-dwelling Crustacea in the central region of the Great Barrier Reef. I. Agile shrimps. Marine Ecology Progress Series 66, 47–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thiel, M., Zander, A. and Baeza, J.A. (2003) Movements of the symbiotic crab Liopetrolisthes mitra between its host sea urchin Tetrapygus niger. Bulletin of Marine Science 72, 89–101.Google Scholar
Virnstein, R.W. and Curran, M.C. (1986) Colonization of artificial seagrass vs. time and distance from source. Marine Ecology Progress Series 29, 279–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wirtz, P. and Diesel, R. (1983) The social structure of Inachus phalangium, a spider crab associated with the sea anemone Anemonia sulcata. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 62, 209–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yanagisawa, Y. and Hamaishi, A. (1986) Mate acquisition by a solitary crab Zebrida adamsii, a symbiont of the sea urchin. Journal of Ethology 4, 153–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zmarzly, D.L. (1984) Distribution and ecology of shallow-water crinoids at Enewetak Atoll, Marshall Islands, with an annotated checklist of their symbionts. Pacific Science 38, 105–122.Google Scholar