Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:07:31.938Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reproduction in the amphipod, Echinogammarus marinus: a comparison between normal and intersex specimens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2003

Alex T. Ford ,
Teresa F. Fernandes ,
Sebastien A. Rider ,
Paul A. Read ,
Craig D. Robinson  and
Ian M. Davies
Alex T. Ford
Affiliation:
School of Life Sciences, Napier University, 10 Colinton Road, Edinburgh, EH10 5DT, UK
Teresa F. Fernandes
Affiliation:
School of Life Sciences, Napier University, 10 Colinton Road, Edinburgh, EH10 5DT, UK
Sebastien A. Rider
Affiliation:
School of Life Sciences, Napier University, 10 Colinton Road, Edinburgh, EH10 5DT, UK
Paul A. Read
Affiliation:
School of Life Sciences, Napier University, 10 Colinton Road, Edinburgh, EH10 5DT, UK
Craig D. Robinson
Affiliation:
Environmental Impacts Group, Fisheries Research Services Marine Laboratory, PO Box 101, 375 Victoria Road, Aberdeen, AB11 9DB, UK
Ian M. Davies
Affiliation:
Environmental Impacts Group, Fisheries Research Services Marine Laboratory, PO Box 101, 375 Victoria Road, Aberdeen, AB11 9DB, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The fecundity and occurrence of intersexuality in the amphipod, Echinogammarus marinus, collected from populations on the east coast of Scotland are reported. Intersex specimens have significantly smaller mean brood sizes than normal specimens. Embryo survival, as measured by the ratio of eggs/embryos in early and late stages of development, is lower in intersex specimens than normal specimens. Greater differences in the number of early stage eggs compared with late stage eggs in intersex specimens is suggested to arise by the active ejection of non-viable eggs, or from the passive loss of eggs through malformed brood plates in females. An apparent reduction in brood sizes between early and late stages of development in ‘normal’ specimens, emphasizes the importance of quantifying different egg/embryo stages in amphipod toxicology and fecundity studies.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 83 , Issue 5 , October 2003 , pp. 937 - 940
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 2003

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

Borowsky, B., Aitken-Ander, P. & Tanacredi, J.T., 1997. Changes in reproductive morphology and physiology observed in the amphipod crustacean, Melita nitida Smith, maintained in the laboratory on polluted estuarine sediments. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 214, 85–95.Google Scholar
Buikema, A.L. & Chester, A.L., 1980. Intersexuality in Gammarus minus Say. Crustaceana, 6, Supplement, 112.Google Scholar
Bulnheim, H.-R., 1965. Untersuchungen über intersexualität bei Gammarus duebeni (Crustacea, Amphipoda). Helgoländer Wissenschaftliche Meersuntersunchungen, 12, 349–394.Google Scholar
Bulnheim, H.-P., 1977. Sexual transformation in Gammarus duebeni (Crustacea, Amphipoda) under the influence of hormonal and parasitic factors. Biologisches Zentralblatt, 96, 61–78.Google Scholar
Carlisle, D.B. & Knowles, F., 1959. Endocrine control in crustaceans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Charniaux-Cotton, H., 1960. Sex determination. In The physiology of Crustacea 1: metabolism and growth (ed. T.H. Waterman), pp. 411–447. New York, London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Charnov, E.L., 1982. The theory of sex allocation. Monographs in Population Biology, no. 18, 1–355.Google Scholar
Dick, J.T.A., Faloon, S.E. & Elwood, R.W., 1998. Active brood care in an amphipod: influences of embryonic development, temperature and oxygen. Animal Behaviour, 56, 663–672.Google Scholar
Dunn, A.M., Adams, J. & Smith, J.E., 1990. Intersexes in a shrimp: a possible disadvantage of environmental sex determi-nation. Evolution, 44, 1875–1878.Google Scholar
Dunn, A.M., Adams, J. & Smith, J.E., 1993. Is intersexuality a cost of environmental sex determination in Gammarus duebeni? Journal of Zoology, 231, 383–389.Google Scholar
Dunn, A.M., Adams, J. & Smith, J.E., 1994. Intersexuality in the crustacean Gammarus deubeni. Invertebrate Reproduction and Development, 25, 139–142.Google Scholar
Ginsburger-Vogel, T., 1991. Intersexuality in OrchestiaMediterranea Costa, 1853, and Orchestia-Aestuarensis Wildish, 1987 (Amphipoda)—a consequence of hybridization or parasitic infestation. Journal of Crustacean Biology, 11, 530–539.Google Scholar
Hastings, M.H., 1981. Intersex specimens of the amphipod, Ampelisca brevicornis (Costa). Crustaceana, 41, 199–205.Google Scholar
Hough, A.R., Bannister, N.J. & Naylor, E., 1992. Intersexuality in the mysid Neomysis integar. Journal of Zoology, 226, 530–588.Google Scholar
IEH, 1999. IEH assessment on the ecological significance of endocrine disruption: effects on reproduction function and consequences for natural populations. Leicester: MRC Institute for Environment and Health. [Assessment A4].Google Scholar
Lawrence, A.J. & Poulter, C., 2001. Impact of copper, pentachlorophenol and benzo[a]pyrene on the swimming efficiency and embryogenesis of the amphipod Chaetogammarus marinus. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 223, 213–233.Google Scholar
Lebederf, G.A., 1939. A study of intersexuality in Drosophila virilis. Genetics, 24, 553–586.Google Scholar
Lincoln, J.L., 1979. British marine Amphipoda: Gammaridea. London: British Natural History Museum.Google Scholar
Moore, C.G. & Stevenson, J.M., 1991. The occurrence of inter-sexuality in harpacticoid copepods and its relationship with pollution. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 22, 72–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morritt, D. & Spicer, J.I., 1996. The culture of eggs and embryos of amphipod crustaceans: implications for brood pouch physiology. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 76, 361–376.Google Scholar
Munro, W.R., 1953. Intersexuality in Asellus aquaticus L. parasitised by a larval Acanthocephalan. Nature, London, 172, 313.Google Scholar
Rigaud, T. & Juchault, P., 1998. Sterile intersexuality in an isopod induced by the interaction between a bacterium (Wolbachia) and the environment. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 76, 493–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sagi, A., Snir, E. & Khalaila, I., 1997. Sexual differentiation in decapod crustaceans: role of the androgenic gland. Invertebrate Reproduction and Development, 31, 55–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sexton, E.W. & Huxley, J.S., 1921. Intersexes in Gammarus cheureuxi and related forms. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 12, 506–556.Google Scholar
Sheader, M. & Chia, F.S., 1970. Development, fecundity and brooding behaviour of the amphipod, Marinogammarus obtusatus. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 50, 1079–1099.Google Scholar
Skadsheim, A., 1984. Coexistence and reproduction adaptations of amphipods: the role of environmental heterogeneity. Oikos, 43, 94–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yaldwyn, J.C., 1966. Protandrous hermaphroditism in decapod prawns of the families Hippolytidae and Campylonotidae. Nature, London, 209, 1366.Google Scholar