Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-wpx69 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-06T16:27:37.420Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evolutionary implications of predation on Recent comatulid crinoids from the Great Barrier Reef

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

David L. Meyer
David L. Meyer*
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Diving investigations of Recent comatulid crinoids at Lizard Island, Great Barrier Reef, indicate that, contrary to long-held notions, crinoids are subject to predation, principally by fishes of several families. Predation usually occurs as sublethal damage to the visceral mass and arms, from which the crinoids usually recover by regeneration. Aspects of the life habits, morphology, biochemistry, and physiology of comatulids are postulated to be adaptations that enable comatulid crinoids to resist predation. Comatulid versatility in coping with predation may account in large measure for their evolutionary success in the face of the late Mesozoic teleost radiation. Frequency of damage and repair in fossil crinoids can be used as a measure of predation pressure in order to assess the impact of predation during the Phanerozoic evolution of crinoids. Paleozoic stalked crinoids made a heavy investment in skeletal armor, while in contrast, comatulids reduced the calyx and became mobile. The relationship between these phyletic trends and predation pressure can now be critically examined.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , Spring 1985 , pp. 154 - 164
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society 

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

Literature Cited

Alexander, R. R. 1981. Predation scars preserved in Chesterian brachiopods: probable culprits and evolutionary consequences for the articulates. J. Paleontol. 55:192–203.Google Scholar
Bakus, G. J. 1981. Chemical defense mechanisms on the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Science. 211:497–499.Google Scholar
Bond, P. N. and Saunders, W. B. 1984. Evidence of predation in Mississippian ammonoids. Geol. Soc. Am., Abstr. with Progr. 16:126.Google Scholar
Bowmer, T. and Keegan, B. F. 1983. Field survey of the occurrence and significance of regeneration in Amphiura filiformis (Echinodermata: Ophiuroidea) from Galway Bay, west coast of Ireland. Mar. Biol. 74:65–71.Google Scholar
Breimer, A. 1978. Ecology of Recent crinoids. Pp. 316–330. In: Moore, R. C. and Teichert, C., eds. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part T, Echinodermata 2, 1. Geol. Soc. Am. and Univ. Kansas Press; Lawrence.Google Scholar
Clark, A. H. 1921. A monograph of the existing crinoids. Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus., no. 82, 1(2):1–795.Google Scholar
Clark, H. L. 1915. The comatulids of Torres Strait: with special reference to their habits and reactions. Paper Dept. Mar. Biol., Carnegie Inst. Washington. 8:97–125.Google Scholar
Cloud, P. E. 1958. Geology of Saipan, Mariana Islands. Pt. 4, Submarine topography and shoal-water ecology. U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Paper. 280:367–451.Google Scholar
Coll, J. C., La Barre, S., Sammarco, P. W., Williams, W. T., and Bakus, G. J. 1982. Chemical defenses in soft corals (Coelenterata: Octocorallia) of the Great Barrier Reef: a study of comparative toxicities. Mar. Ecol. Progr. Ser. 8:271–278.Google Scholar
Collette, B. B. and Talbot, F. H. 1972. Activity patterns of coral reef fishes with emphasis on nocturnal-diurnal changeover. Bull. Nat. Hist. Mus., Los Angeles Co. No. 14:98–124.Google Scholar
Conan, G., Roux, M., and Sibuet, M. 1981. A photographic survey of a population of the stalked crinoid Diplocrinus (Annacrinus) wyvillethomsoni (Echinodermata) from the bathyal slope of the Bay of Biscay. Deep-Sea Res. 28A:441–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emson, R. H. and Wilke, I. C. 1980. Fission and autotomy in echinoderms. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Ann. Rev. 18:155–250.Google Scholar
Fell, H. B. 1966. Ecology of crinoids. Pp. 49–62. In: Boolootian, R. A., ed. Physiology of Echinodermata. Wiley-Interscience; New York.Google Scholar
Glynn, P. W. and Wellington, G. M. 1983. Corals and Coral Reefs of the Galapagos Islands. 330 pp. Univ. California Press; Berkeley.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. and Vrba, E. S. 1982. Exaptation—a missing term in the science of form. Paleobiology. 8:4–15.Google Scholar
Hiatt, R. W. and Strasburg, D. W. 1960. Ecological relationships of the fish fauna on coral reefs of the Marshall Islands. Ecol. Monogr. 30:65–127.Google Scholar
Hobson, E. S. 1975. Feeding patterns among tropical reef fishes. Am. Sci. 63:382–392.Google Scholar
Hyman, L. H. 1955. The Invertebrates. Vol. 4. Echinodermata. McGraw-Hill; New York.Google Scholar
Kitchell, J. A., Boggs, C. H., Kitchell, J. F., and Rice, J. A. 1981. Prey selection by naticid gastropods: experimental tests and application to the fossil record. Paleobiology. 7:533–552.Google Scholar
Lowe, R. H. 1962. The fishes of the British Guiana continental shelf, Atlantic coast of South America, with notes on their natural history. J. Linn. Soc. London, Zool. 44:669–700.Google Scholar
Macpherson, E. 1981. Resource partitioning in a Mediterranean demersal fish community. Mar. Ecol. Progr. Ser. 4:183–193.Google Scholar
Magnus, D. B. E. 1963. Der Federstern Heterometra savignyi im Roten Meer. Nat. Mus. Frankf. 93:355–394.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. L. 1979. Length and spacing of the tube feet in crinoids (Echinodermata) and their role in suspension feeding. Mar. Biol. 51:361–369.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. L. 1982. Food and feeding mechanisms: Crinozoa. Pp. 25–42. In: Jangoux, M. and Lawrence, J. M., eds. Echinoderm Nutrition. A. A. Blakema; Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. L. and Ausich, W. I. 1983. Biotic interactions among Recent and among fossil crinoids. Pp. 377–427. In: Tevesz, M. J. S. and McCall, P. L., eds. Biotic Interactions in Recent and Fossil Benthic Communities. Plenum; New York.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. L., LaHaye, C. A., Holland, N. D., Arneson, A. C., and Strickler, J. R. 1984. Time-lapse cinematography of feather stars (Echinodermata: Crinoidea) on the Great Barrier Reef: demonstrations of posture changes, locomotion, spawning and possible predation by fish. Mar. Biol. 78:179–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, D. L. and Macurda, D. B. Jr. 1977. The adaptive radiation of the comatulid crinoids. Paleobiology. 3:74–82.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. L. and Macurda, D. B. Jr. 1980. Ecology and distribution of the crinoids (Echinodermata) of the Palau Islands and Guam (Western Pacific). Micronesica. 16(1):59–99.Google Scholar
Mladenov, P. V. 1983. Rate of arm regeneration and potential causes of arm loss in the feather star Florometra serratissima (Echinodermata: Crinoidea). Can. J. Zool. 61:2873–2879.Google Scholar
Palmer, A. R. 1982. Predation and parallel evolution: recurrent parietal plate reduction in balanomorph barnacles. Paleobiology. 8:31–44.Google Scholar
Peterson, C. H. and Quammen, M. L. 1982. Siphon nipping: its importance to small fishes and its impact on growth of the bivalve Protothaca staminea (Conrad). J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 63:249–268.Google Scholar
Potts, F. A. 1915. The fauna associated with the crinoids of a tropical coral reef: with especial reference to its color variations. Pap. Dept. Mar. Biol., Carnegie Inst. Washington. 8:71–96.Google Scholar
Przibram, H. 1901. Experimentelle Studien uber Regeneration. Arch. Entwicklungsmech. Org. 11:321–345.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, H. W. 1978. Evolution of articulate crinoids. Pp. 302–316. In: Moore, R. C. and Teichert, C., eds. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part T, Echinodermata 2, 1. Geol. Soc. Am. and Univ. Kansas; Lawrence.Google Scholar
Rideout, J. A., Smith, N. B., and Sutherland, M. D. 1979. Chemical defenses of crinoids by polyketide sulphates. Experientia. 35:1273–1274.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sides, E. M. 1982. Estimates of partial mortality for eight species of brittle-stars. P. 327. In: Lawrence, J. M., ed. Echinoderms: Proceedings of the International Conference, Tampa Bay, Balkema; Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Signor, P. W. and Brett, C. E. 1984. The mid-Paleozoic precursor to the Mesozoic marine revolution. Paleobiology. 10:229–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, D. F., Meyer, D. L., and Horner, S. M. J. 1981. Amino acid uptake by the comatulid crinoid Cenometra bella (Echinodermata) following evisceration. Mar. Biol. 61:207–213.Google Scholar
Sokal, R. R. and Rohlf, F. J. 1981. Biometry, 2nd ed. Freeman; New York.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 1974. What has happened to the articulate brachiopods? Geol. Soc. Am., Abstr. with Progr. 6:966–967.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 1977. Trends, rates, and patterns of evolution in the Bivalvia. Pp. 209–250. In: Hallam, A., ed. Patterns of Evolution. Elsevier; Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1977. The Mesozoic marine revolution: evidence from snails, predators, and grazers. Paleobiology. 3:245–258.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1982. Unsuccessful predation and evolution. Am. Nat. 120(6):701–720.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1983. Shell-breaking predation through time. Pp. 649–669. In: Tevesz, M. J. S. and McCall, P. W., eds. Biotic Interactions in Recent and Fossil Benthic Communities. Plenum; New York.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. V., Schindel, D. E., and Zipser, E. 1981. Predation through geological time: evidence from gastropod shell repair. Science. 214:1024–1026.Google Scholar
Ward, P. 1981. Shell sculpture as a defensive adaptation in ammonoids. Paleobiology. 7:95–100.Google Scholar
Woodin, S. A. 1984. Effects of browsing predators: activity changes in infauna following tissue loss. Biol. Bull. 166:558–573.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 Sci. 38:105–122.Google Scholar