Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T19:03:07.243Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Predation upon Mytilus galloprovincialis (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Mytilidae) by juvenile Carcinus maenas (Crustacea: Decapoda) using mandibular chipping

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 May 2008

Brian Morton  and
E.M. Harper
Brian Morton*
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD
E.M. Harper
Affiliation:
Department of Earth Sciences, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: Brian Morton Department of Zoology The Natural History Museum Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field observations of small (<20 mm) individuals of Mytulus galloprovincialis at Littlehampton (West Sussex) on the south-eastern coast of England showed that many collected as recently dead shells had a distinctive pattern of damage around the posterior valve margins. Laboratory experiments confirmed that small Carcinus maenas (<22 mm carapace width) were capable of inflicting a similar style of damage. Small C. maenas fed successfully on a range of mussel sizes (5–20 mm shell length), positively correlated with carapace width. All used the same technique to access the bivalve prey, that is, by marginal mandibular chipping in order to achieve sufficient damage to allow insertion of a chelal dactyl between the valves. Mandibular chipping has previously been reported upon from non-chelate decapods and juvenile lobsters. The chelae of juvenile C. maenas are small and have a lower mechanical advantage than has been reported upon for adult conspecifics which, in any case, are not highly adapted for durophagy. We suggest that because of the poor mechanical performance and small gape of the chelae juvenile C. maenas behave as though they were achelate. As well as broadening our understanding of the repertoire of known feeding behaviours of C. maenas, our study may also provide an insight into the evolution of durophagy within the Decapoda.

Keywords

durophagyfeeding methodsmussels
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 88 , Issue 3 , May 2008 , pp. 563 - 568
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 2008

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

Abby-Kalio, N.J. and Warner, G.F. (1989) Heterochely and handedness in the shore crab Carcinus maenas (L.) (Crustacea: Brachyura). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 96, 19–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borradaile, L.A. (1922) On the mouthparts of the shore crab. Journal of the Linnean Society (Zoology) 35, 115–42.Google Scholar
Brown, C.S., Cassuto, S.A.R. and Loos, R.W. (1979) Biomechanics of chelipeds in some decapod crustaceans. Journal of Zoology, London 188, 143–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlton, J.T. and Cohen, A.N. (2003) Episodic global dispersal in shallow water marine organisms: the case history of the European shore crabs Carcinus maenas and C. aestuarii. Journal of Biogeography 30, 1809–1820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, A.N., Carlton, J.T. and Fountain, M.C. (1995) Introduction, dispersal and potential impacts of the green crab Carcinus maenas in San Francisco Bay, California. Marine Biology 122, 225–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crothers, J.H. (1967) The biology of the shore crab Carcinus maenas (L.). 1. The background—anatomy, growth and life history. Field Studies 2, 407–434.Google Scholar
Cunningham, P.N. and Hughes, R.N. (1984) Learning of predatory skills by shore crabs Carcinus maenas feeding on mussels and dogwhelks. Marine Ecology Progress Series 16, 21–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dare, P.J. and Edwards, D.B. (1976) Experiments on the survival, growth and yield of relaid seed mussels (Mytilus edulis L.) in the Menai Straits, North Wales. Journal du Conseil Permanent International pour L' Exploration de la Mer 37, 16–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elner, R.W. (1978) The mechanics of predation by the shore crab, Carcinus maenas (L.) on the edible mussel Mytilus edulis L. Oecologia 36, 333–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elner, R.W. and Hughes, R.N. (1978) Energy maximisation in the diet of the shore crab Carcinus maenas. Journal of Animal Ecology 47, 103–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elner, R.W. and Jamieson, G.S. (1979) Predation of sea scallops, Placopecten magellanicus, by the Rock crab, Cancer irroratus, and the American lobster, Homarus americanus. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 36, 537–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, C.L. and Seiderer, J.L. (1980) Rock-lobsters and mussels—limitations and preferences in a predator–prey interaction. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 44, 95–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, C.L., Hockey, P.A.R., van Erkom-Schurink, C. and Le-Roux, P.J. (1992) Marine invasive aliens on South African shores: implications for community structure and trophic functioning. South African Journal of Marine Science 12, 713–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoagland, P. and Jin, D. (2006) Science and economics in the management of invasive species. Bioscience 56, 931–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, R.N. and O'Brien, N. (2001) Shore crabs are able to transfer learned handling skills to novel prey. Animal Behaviour 61, 711–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, P.J. and Tong, L.J. (1998) Feeding technique, critical size and size preference of Jasus edwardsii fed cultured and wild mussels. Marine and Freshwater Research 49, 151–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jamieson, G.S., Grosholz, E.D., Armstrong, D.A. and Elner, R.W. (1998) Potential ecological implications from the introduction of the European green crab, Carcinus maenas (Linnaeus), to British Columbia, Canada, and Washington, USA. Journal of Natural History 32, 1587–1598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, K.T. and Jensen, J.N. (1985) The importance of some epibenthic predators on the density of juvenile benthic macrofauna in the Danish Wadden Sea. Journal of Experimental Biology and Ecology 89, 157–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lau, C.J. (1987) Feeding behavior of the Hawaiian slipper lobster Scyllarides squammosus, with a review of decapod crustacean feeding tactics on molluscan prey. Bulletin of Marine Science 41, 378–391.Google Scholar
Lee, S.Y. and Seed, R. (1992) Ecological implications of cheliped size in crabs: some data from Carcinus maenas and Liocarcinus holsatus. Marine Ecology Progress Series 84, 151–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mascaró, M. and Seed, R. (2001) Foraging behavior of juvenile Carcinus maenas (L.) and Cancer pagurus L. Marine Biology 139, 1135–1145.Google Scholar
Moody, K.E. and Steneck, R.S. (1993) Mechanisms of predation among large decapod crustaceans of the Gulf of Maine coast: functional vs. phylogenetic patterns. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 168, 111–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton-Griffiths, M. (1967) Some ecological aspects of the feeding behaviour of the oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus on the edible mussel Mytilus edulis. Ibis 109, 412–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poore, G.C.B. (2004) Marine decapod crustacea of Southern Australia. A guide to identification. Collingwood, Victoria, Australia: CSIRO Publishers. i–ix + 1–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Randall, J.E. (1964) Contributions to the biology of the Queen conch, Strombus gigas. Bulletin of Marine Sciences 14, 246–295.Google Scholar
Rangeley, R.W. and Thomas, M.L.H. (1987) Predatory behaviour of juvenile shore crab Carcinus maenas (L.). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 108, 191–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ropes, J.W. (1968) The feeding habits of the green crab, Carcinus maenas (L.). United States Fisheries and Wildlife Service, Fisheries Bulletin 67, 183–203.Google Scholar
Seed, R. (1969) The ecology of Mytilus edulis L. (Lamellibranchia) on exposed rocky shores. II. Growth and mortality. Oecologia 3, 317–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seed, R. (1990) Predator–prey relationships between the swimming crab Thalamita danae Stimpson (Decapoda: Portunidae) and the mussels Perna viridis (L.) and Brachidontes variabilis (Krauss). The marine flora and fauna of Hong Kong and southern China II. In Morton, B. (ed.) Proceedings of the Second International Marine Biological Workshop: the Marine Flora and Fauna of Hong Kong and Southern Chin, Hong Kong 1986. Hong Kong: Hong University Press, pp. 993–1013.Google Scholar
Seed, R. (1993) Crabs as predators of marine bivalve molluscs. In Morton, B. (ed.) The Marine Biology of the South China Sea. Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Marine Biology of Hong Kong and the South China Sea, Hong Kong 1990. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, pp. 393–418.Google Scholar
Seed, R. and Hughes, R.N. (1995) Criteria for pre size-selection in molluscivorous crabs with contrasting claw morphologies. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 193, 177–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seed, R. and Hughes, R.N. (1997) Chelal characteristics and foraging behaviour of the Blue crab Callinectes sapidus Rathbun. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 44, 221–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, L.D. (2004) Biogeographic differences in claw size and performance in an introduced crab predator Carcinus maenas. Marine Ecology Progress Series 276, 209–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thresher, R., Proctor, C., Ruiz, G., Gurney, R., MacKinnon, C., Walton, W., Rodriguez, L. and Bax, N. (2003) Invasion dynamics of the European shore crab, Carcinus maenas, in Australia. Marine Biology 142, 867–876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermeij, G.J. (1977) Patterns in crab claw size: the geography of crushing. Systematic Zoology 26, 18–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warner, G.F., Chapman, N., Hawkey, N. and Waring, D.G. (1982) Structure and function of the chelae and chela closing muscles of the shore crab Carcinus maenas (Crustacea: Brachyura). Journal of Zoology, London 196, 431–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar