Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T16:22:15.092Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Do gulls benefit from the starfish autotomy response?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2010

I.C. Wilkie
I.C. Wilkie*
Affiliation:
Department of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, Scotland, G4 0BA
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: I.C. Wilkie, Department of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, Scotland, G4 0BA email: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Certain starfish have a restricted autotomy region at the base of each arm, at which the whole arm is detached if damaged or trapped. These species are common prey items of gulls, which have been observed to break-up starfish by gripping one arm and shaking the whole animal. This raises the possibility that shaking invokes the autotomy response, thereby accelerating consumption of prey and reducing the opportunity for prey to be stolen. To evaluate the role of autotomy in this interaction, specimens of Asterias rubens were shaken manually and the timing and pattern of breakage recorded. It was found that arm detachment was usually mediated by autotomy, although this depended on the way in which animals were shaken, and that autotomy did not effect detachment more rapidly than breakage outwith the autotomy region.

Keywords

Asterias rubensautotomygullspredation
Type
Research Article
Information
Marine Biodiversity Records , Volume 3 , June 2010 , e12
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 2010

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

Clark, A.M. and Downey, M.E. (1992) Starfishes of the Atlantic. London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Dare, P.J. (1982) Notes on the swarming behaviour and population density of Asterias rubens L. (Echinodermata: Asteroidea) feeding on the mussel, Mytilus edulis L. Journal du Conseil International pour l'Exploration de la Mer 40, 112–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewar, J.M. (1937) Herring gulls feeding on starfish. The Scottish Naturalist 223, 32.Google Scholar
Emson, R.H. and Wilkie, I.C. (1980) Fission and autotomy in echinoderms. Oceanography and Marine Biology: an Annual Review 18, 155–250.Google Scholar
Eylers, J.P. (1976) Aspects of skeletal mechanics of the starfish Asterias forbesi. Journal of Morphology 149, 353–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, J.M. (1992) Arm loss and regeneration in Asteroidea (Echinodermata). In Scalera-Liaci, L. and Canicattì, C. (eds) Echinoderm research 1991. Rotterdam: Balkema, pp. 39–52.Google Scholar
Marrs, J., Wilkie, I.C., Sköld, M., Maclaren, W.M. and McKenzie, J.D. (2000) Size-related aspects of arm damage, tissue mechanics, and autotomy in the starfish Asterias rubens. Marine Biology 137, 59–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menge, B.A. (1982) Effects of feeding on the environment: Asteroidea. In Jangoux, M. and Lawrence, J.M. (eds) Echinoderm nutrition. Rotterdam: Balkema, pp. 521–551.Google Scholar
Oldham, C. (1937) Herring gulls feeding on starfish. The Scottish Naturalist 224, 49.Google Scholar
Ramsay, K., Turner, J.R., Vize, S.J. and Richardson, C.A. (2000) A link between predator density and arm loss in the starfish Marthasterias glacialis and Asterias rubens. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 80, 565–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffer, L.C. (1971) Specializations in the feeding behaviour of gulls and other birds. PhD thesis. University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
Sibly, R.M. and McCleery, R.H. (1983) The distribution between feeding sites of herring gulls breeding at Walney Island, UK. Journal of Animal Ecology 52, 51–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spaans, A.L. (1971) On the feeding ecology of the herring gull Larus argentatus Pont. in the northern part of the Netherlands. Ardea 59, 73–188.Google Scholar
Thomas, L.P. and Thomas, S.B. (1965) Herring gulls diving for starfish. Quarterly Journal of the Florida Academy of Sciences 28, 195–196.Google Scholar
Verbeek, N.A. (1977a) Comparative feeding behaviour of immature and adult herring gulls. The Wilson Bulletin 89, 415–421.Google Scholar
Verbeek, N.A. (1977b) Comparative feeding ecology of herring gulls Larus argentatus and lesser black-backed gulls Larus fuscus. Ardea 65, 25–42.Google Scholar
Wares, J.P. (2001) Biogeography of Asterias: North Atlantic climate change and speciation. Biological Bulletin. Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole 201, 95–103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilkie, I.C. (2001) Autotomy as a prelude to regeneration in echinoderms. Microscopy Research and Technique 55, 369–396.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilkie, I.C., Griffiths, G.V.R. and Glennie, S.F. (1990) Morphological and physiological aspects of the autotomy plane in the aboral integument of Asterias rubens L. (Echinodermata). In De Ridder, C., Dubois, P. and Jangoux, M. (eds) Echinoderm research. Rotterdam: Balkema, pp. 301–313.Google Scholar