Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:41:48.946Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Geotaxis and Phototaxis in Elphidium Crispum (Protozoa: Foraminiferida)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

C.J. Manley  and
S.R. Shaw
C.J. Manley
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, University of Plymouth, Drake's Circus, Plymouth, PL4 8AA.
S.R. Shaw
Affiliation:
School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Plymouth, Drake's Circus, Plymouth, PL4 8AA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Laboratory experiments were carried out upon Elphidium crispum to determine the mechanism by which this species remains epifaunal, by investigating geotaxism, phototaxism, temporal influence and responses through ontogeny. Different size-classes of specimens were tested for phototaxism and geotaxism, over four and five months respectively. Specimens of the smallest size-class tested (250–355 μm) were significantly phototaxic and geotaxic. Significant positive phototaxism was demonstrated in all tests except one, with specimens in the size-class 500–1000 μm giving particularly significant results for the months of June and July 1994. Specimens were significantly geotactic for three of thirteen tests: both negative and positive geotaxism were demonstrated.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 77 , Issue 4 , November 1997 , pp. 959 - 967
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1997

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

Anderson, O.R., Lee, J.J. & Faber, W.W., 1991. Collection, maintenance and culture methods for the study of living foraminifera. In Biology of Foraminifera (ed. J.J., Lee and O.R., Anderson), pp. 335–357. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Arnold, Z.M., 1974. Field and laboratory techniques for the study of living Foraminifera. In Foraminifera, vol. 1 (ed. R.H., Hedley and C.G., Adams), pp. 153–207. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Atlas, R.M. & Bartha, R., 1981. Microbial ecology. Fundamentals and applications. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Boltovskoy, E. & Wright, R., 1976. Recent Foraminifera. The Hague: W. Junk.Google Scholar
Buzzati-Traverso, A. A., 1960. Perspectives in marine biology. In Perspectives in marine biology (ed. A.A., Buzzati-Traverso), pp. 613–621. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Fenchel, T., 1987. Ecology of Protozoa. The biology of free-living phagotrophic protists. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Fenchel, T. & Finlay, B.J., 1984. Geotaxis in the ciliated protozoan Loxodes. Journal of Experimental Biology, 110, 17–33.Google Scholar
Giere, O., 1993. Meiobenthology. The microscopic fauna in aquatic sediments. London: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Jepps, M.W., 1942. Studies on Polystomella Lamarck (Foraminifera). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 25, 607–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitazato, H., 1981. Observation of behaviour and mode of life of benthic foraminifers in laboratory. Geoscience Report Shizuoka University, 6, 61–71.Google Scholar
Langer, M., Hottinger, L. & Huber, B., 1989. Functional morphology in low-diverse benthic foraminiferal assemblages from tidal flats of the North Sea. Senckenbergiana Maritima. Frankfurtam-Main, 20, 81–99.Google Scholar
Lankford, R.R., 1959. Distribution and ecology of Foraminifera from East Mississippi Delta margin. Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, 43, 2068–2099.Google Scholar
Lee, J.J., 1974. Towards understanding the niche of Foraminifera. In Foraminifera, vol. 1 (ed. R.H., Hedley and C.G., Adams), pp. 207. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lee, J.J., 1990. Phylum Granuloreticulosa (Foraminifera). In Protozoa and their role in marine processes (ed. P.C., Reid et al.), pp. 180–194. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. [NATO ASI Series, no. G25.]Google Scholar
Murdoch, J. & Barnes, J.A., 1986. Statistical tables for science, engineering, management and business studies, 3rd ed. London: Macmillan & Co. Ltd.Google Scholar
Murray, J.W., 1963. Ecological experiments on Foraminiferida. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 43, 621–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, J.W., 1979. A synopsis of the British nearshore foraminiferids. Synopses of the British Fauna, New Series, Linnean Society. London, 16, 1–68.Google Scholar
Murray, J.W., 1991. Ecology and paleoecology of benthic Foraminifera. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Myers, E.H., 1943. Life activities of Foraminifera in relation to marine ecology. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 86, 439–458.Google Scholar
Nautical Almanac, 1993. The nautical almanac, 1993. London: HMSO Publications.Google Scholar
Sheehan, R. & Banner, F.T., 1972. The pseudopodia of Elphidium incertum. Revista Española de Micropaleontologia, 4, 31–63.Google Scholar
Sliter, W.V., 1965. Laboratory experiments on the life cycle and ecological controls of Roslina globuhris d'Orbigny. Journal of Protozoology, 12, 210–215.Google Scholar
Tait, R.V., 1981. Elements of marine ecology, 3rd ed. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Verworn, M., 1889. Psycho-physiologische Protistenstudien. Germany: Jena.Google Scholar