, Volume 54, Issue 3, pp 348–352 | Cite as

Recruitment of marine invertebrates: the role of active larval choices and early mortality

  • Michael J. Keough
  • Barbara J. Downes


Spatial variation in the recruitment of sessile marine invertebrates with planktonic larvae may be derived from a number of sources: events within the plankton, choices made by larvae at the time of settlement, and mortality of juvenile organisms after settlement, but before a census by an observer. These sources usually are not distinguished.

A study of the recruitment of four species of sessile invertebrates living on rock walls beneath a kelp canopy showed that both selection of microhabitats by settling larvae and predation by fish may be important. Two microhabitats were of interest; open, flat rock surfaces, and small pits and crevices that act as refuges from fish predators.

The polychaete Spirorbis eximus and the cyclostome bryozoan Tubulipora spp. showed no preference for refuges, but settled apparently at random on the available substrata. Tubulipora was preyed upon heavily by fish, while Spirorbis was relatively unaffected. The bryozoans Celleporaria brunnea and Scrupocellaria bertholetti both recruited preferentially into refuges. Scrupocellaria were preyed upon, while Celleporaria juveniles seemed unaffected. Predation by fish modified the spatial distribution (Tubulipora), abundance (Tubulipora), or size distribution (Scrupocellaria) of the juvenile population, or had relatively little effect (Celleporaria, Spirorbis).

All of the above events occur within three weeks of settlement. Since inferences about the effect of larval events on the population dynamics of adult organisms are often based on observations of the patterns of recruitment after one or two months, they are therefore likely to be misleading.


Spatial Variation Population Dynamic Polychaete Early Mortality Rock Wall 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Choat JH (1982) The influence of fish predation on benthic communities. MsGoogle Scholar
  2. Connell JH (1961) Effect of competition, predation by Thais lapillus, and other factors on natural populations of the barnacle, Balanus balanoides. Ecol Monogr 31:61–104Google Scholar
  3. Day RW (1977) Two contrasting effects of predation on species richness in coral reef habitats. Mar Biol 44:1–5Google Scholar
  4. Day RW, Osman RW (1982) Predation by Patiria miniata (Asteroidea) on bryozoans: prey diversity may depend on the mechanism of succession. Oecologia (Berl.) 51:300–309Google Scholar
  5. Dean TA, Hurd LE (1980) Development in an estuarine fouling community: the influence of early colonists on later arrivals. Oecologia (Berl) 45:295–301Google Scholar
  6. Denley EJ (1981) The ecology of the intertidal barnacle, Tesseropera rosea. PhD thesis, University of Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  7. Goodbody I (1965) The biology of Ascidia nigra (Savigny). III The annual pattern of colonization. Biol Bull 129:128–133Google Scholar
  8. Haldorsen L, Moser M (1979) Geographic patterns of prey utilization in two species of surfperch (Embiotocidae) Copeia 1979:567–572Google Scholar
  9. Jackson JBC (1977) Habitat area, colonization and development of epibenthic community structure. In: BF Keegan, PO Ceidigh and PJS Boaden (eds) Biology of benthic organisms. Pergamon Press, Oxford, p 349–358Google Scholar
  10. Keough MJ (1982a) Dynamics of the epifauna of Pinna bicolor: interactions between recruitment, predation and competition. Submitted MsGoogle Scholar
  11. Keough MJ (1982b) Effects of patch size on the abundance of sessile epibenthic invertebrates. MsGoogle Scholar
  12. Keough MJ, Butler AJ (1979) The importance of asteroid predators in the organisation of a sessile community on pier pilings. Mar Biol 51:167–177Google Scholar
  13. Menge BA (1972) Foraging strategy of a starfish in relation to actual prey availability and environmental predictability. Ecol Monogr 42:25–50Google Scholar
  14. Osman RW (1977) The establishment and development of a marine epifaunal community. Ecol Monogr 47:37–63Google Scholar
  15. Paine RT (1969) The Pisaster — Tegula interaction: prey patches, predator preference, and intertidal community strucutre. Ecology 50:950–961Google Scholar
  16. Russ GR (1980) Effects of predation by fishes, competition, and structural complexity of the substratum on the establishment of a marine epifaunal community. J Exp mar Biol Ecol 42:55–69Google Scholar
  17. Sammarco PW (1980) Diadema and its relationship to coral spat mortality: grazing, competition and biological disturbance. J Exp mar Biol Ecol 45:245–272Google Scholar
  18. Scheltema RS (1974) Biological interactions determining larval settlement of marine invertebrates. Thalassia Jugoslavica 10:263–296Google Scholar
  19. Schoener A, Schoener TW (1981) The dynamics of the species-area relation in marine fouling systems: 1 Biological correlates of changes in the species-area slope. Am Nat 118:339–360Google Scholar
  20. Sutherland JP, Karlson RH (1977) Development and stability of the fouling community at Beaufort, North Carolina. Ecol Monogr 47:425–446Google Scholar
  21. Underwood AJ (1979) Ecology of intertidal gastropods. Adv mar Res 16:111–210Google Scholar
  22. Underwood AJ, Denley EJ (1982) Paradigms, explanations, and generalizations in models for the structure of intertidal communities on rocky shores. In: Ecological communities: Conceptual Issues and the Evidence. Princeton University Monograph, Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael J. Keough
    • 1
  • Barbara J. Downes
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraUSA

Personalised recommendations