Marine Biology

, Volume 84, Issue 3, pp 331–340

Depression of feeding and growth rates of the seastar Evasterias troschelii during long-term exposure to the water-soluble fraction of crude oil

  • C. E. O'Clair
  • S. D. Rice
Article

Abstract

To test the effect of petroleum hydrocarbons on predation by the seastar Evasterias troschelii (Stimpson, 1862) on the mussel Mytilus edulis (L.), we exposed the predator with the prey to six concentrations of the water-soluble fraction (WSF) of Cook Inlet crude oil. Seastars and mussels were collected at Auke Bay, Alaska, in November 1980. During a 28 d exposure in a flow-through system, seastars were more sensitive to the WSF than mussels: the LC50 for the seastars was 0.82 ppm at Day 19 and, although no mussels were exposed to WSF for more than 12 d, none died. Daily feeding rates (whether in terms of number of mussels seastar-1 d-1 or dry weight of mussels seastar-1 d-1) were significantly reduced at all concentrations above 0.12 ppm. At 0.20, 0.28 and 0.72 ppm WSF, daily feeding rates (in terms of dry weight of mussels) were, respectively, 53, 37, and 5% of the control rate; at the two highest concentrations (0.97 and 1.31 ppm WSF), the seastars did not feed. Seastars at concentrations greater than 0.12 ppm WSF grew slower than individuals from the control group and the 0.12 ppm-treatment group combined. These laboratory results show that E. troschelii is more sensitive to chronic low levels of the WSF of crude oil. The possibility that such oil pollution could reduce predation and permit M. edulis to monopolize the low intertidal zone of southern Alaska remains to be studied.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature cited

  1. Bancroft, T. A.: Topics in intermediate statistical methods, Vol. 1. 129 pp. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press 1968Google Scholar
  2. Berkson, J.: Tables for the maximum likelihood estimate of the logistic function. Biometrics 13, 28–34 (1957)Google Scholar
  3. Christensen, A. M.: The feeding behavior of the seastar Evasterias troschelii Stimpson. Limnol. Oceanogr. 2, 180–197 (1957)Google Scholar
  4. Cooley, J. F.: Some effects of the water accommodated fraction of No. 2 fuel oil on a predator-prey system: Asterias forbesi and Mytilus edulis, 99 pp. M. Sci. thesis, University of Rhode Island 1976Google Scholar
  5. Craddock, D. R.: Acute toxic effects of petroleum on arctic and subarctic marine organisms. In: Effects of petroleum on arctic and subarctic marine environments and organisms. Vol. II. Biological effects, pp 1–93. Ed. by D. C. Malins. New York: Academic Press 1977Google Scholar
  6. Crapp, G. B.: Chronic oil pollution. In: The ecological effects of oil pollution on littoral communities, pp 187–203. Ed. by E. B. Cowell. London: Institute of Petroleum 1971Google Scholar
  7. Dayton, P. K.: Competition, disturbance, and community organization: the provision and subsequent utilization of space in a rocky intertidal community. Ecol. Monogr. 41, 351–389 (1971)Google Scholar
  8. Dayton, P. K.: Experimental evaluation of ecological dominance in a rocky intertidal algal community. Ecol. Monogr. 45, 137–159 (1975)Google Scholar
  9. Finney, D. J.: Statistical method in biological assay, 661 pp. New York: Haffner Publishing Co. 1952Google Scholar
  10. Fisher, W. K.: Asteroidea of the North Pacific and adjacent waters, Part 3, Forcipulata (concluded). Bull. U.S. natn. Mus. 76, 1–356 (1930)Google Scholar
  11. Gilfillan, E. S.: Decrease of net carbon flux in two species of mussels caused by extracts of crude oil. Mar. Biol. 29, 53–57 (1975)Google Scholar
  12. Giese, A. C.: Comparative physiology: annual reproductive cycles of marine invertebrates. A. Rev. Physiol. 21, 547–576 (1959)Google Scholar
  13. Hamilton, M. A., R. C. Russo and R. V. Thurston: Frimmed Spearman-Karber method for estimating median lethal concentrations in toxicity bioassays. Envir. Sci. Technol. 11, 714–719 (1977)Google Scholar
  14. Jangoux, M.: Food and feeding mechanisms: Asteroidea. In: Echinoderm nutrition, pp 117–159. Ed. by M. A. Jangoux and J. M. Lawrence. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema 1982Google Scholar
  15. Johnson, F. G.: Sublethal biological effects of petroleum hydrocarbon exposures: bacteria, algae, and invertebrates. In: Effects of petroleum on arctic and subarctic marine environments and organisms. Vol. II. Biological effects, pp 271–318. Ed. by D. C. Malins. New York: Academic Press 1977Google Scholar
  16. Lewis, J. R.: Problems and approaches to baseline studies in coastal communities. In: Marine pollution and sea life, pp 401–404. Ed. by M. Ruivo. Surrey: Fishing News (Books) Ltd 1972Google Scholar
  17. Lewis, J. R.: Options and problems in environmental management and evaluation. Helgoländer Meeresunters. 33, 452–466 (1980)Google Scholar
  18. Lubchenco, J. and B. A. Menge: Community development and persistence in a low rocky intertidal zone. Ecol. Monogr. 48, 67–94 (1978)Google Scholar
  19. Mann, K. H. and R. B. Clark: Long-term effects of oil spills on marine intertidal communities. J. Fish. Res. Bd Can. 35, 791–795 (1978)Google Scholar
  20. McIntyre, A. D., B. L. Bayne, H. Rosenthal and I. C. White (Eds.): On the feasibility of effects monitoring, Co-op. Res. Rep. int. Counc. Explor. Sea 75, 1–42 (1978)Google Scholar
  21. Menge, B. A.: Effects of feeding on the environment. Asteroidea. In: Echinoderm nutrition, pp 521–551. Ed. by M. A. Jangoux and J. M. Lawrence. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema 1982Google Scholar
  22. Moles, A., S. D. Rici and S. Andrews: Continuous-flow devices for exposing marine organisms to the water-soluble fraction of crude oil and its components. Tech. Rep. Fish. aquat. Sciences Can. (In press). (Proc. 10th a. aquat. Toxicity Wkshop. Ed. by P. G. Wells and R. F. Addison. Ottawa: Department of Fisheries & Oceans)Google Scholar
  23. Neff, J. M. and J. W. Anderson: An ultraviolet spectrophotometric method for the determination of naphthalene and alkylnaphthalenes in the tissues of oil-contaminated marine animals. Bull. envir. Contam. Toxicol. 14, 122–128 (1975)Google Scholar
  24. Neuhold, J. M. and L. F. Ruggerio: Ecosystem processes and organic contaminants: research needs and an interdisciplinary perspective, 52 pp. (Prepared for the National Science Foundation.) Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office 1975Google Scholar
  25. North, W. J., M. Neushul, Jr. and K. A. Clendenning: Successive biological changes observed in a marine cove exposed to a large spillage of mineral oil. Symp. Pollut. mar. Micro-org. Prod. Pétrol., Monaco 335–354 (1964)Google Scholar
  26. Ordzie, C. J. and G. C. Garofalo: Lethal and sublethal effects of short term acute doses of Kuwait crude oil and a dispersant Corexit 9527 on bay scallops, Argopecten irradians (Lamark) and two predators at different temperatures. Mar. envirl Res. 5, 195–210 (1981)Google Scholar
  27. Paine, R. T.: Food web complexity and species diversity. Am. Nat. 100, 65–75 (1966)Google Scholar
  28. Paine, R. T.: Intertidal community structure: experimental studies on the relationship between a dominant competitor and its principal predator. Oecologia 15, 93–120 (1974)Google Scholar
  29. Paine, R. T.: Size-limited predation: a observational and experimental approach with the Mytilus-Pisaster interaction. Ecology 57, 858–873 (1976)Google Scholar
  30. Paine, R. T.: Food webs: linkage, interaction strength and community infrastructure. J. Anim. Ecol. 49, 667–685 (1980)Google Scholar
  31. Rice, S. D., S. Korn, C. C. Brodersen, S. A. Lindsay and S. A. Andrews: Toxicity of ballast-water treatment effluent to marine organisms at Port Valdez, Alaska. In: Proc. 1981 Oil Spill Conf., Atlanta, Ga., pp 55–61. Washington, D.C.: American Petroleum Institute 1981Google Scholar
  32. Rice, S. D., A. Moles, T. L. Taylor and J. F. Karinen: Sensitivity of 39 Alaskan marine species to Cook Inlet crude oil and No. 2 fuel oil. In: Proc. A.P.I., E.P.A., U.S.C.G. 1979 Oil Spill Conference (Prevention, Behavior, Control, Cleanup), pp 549–554. Washington, D.C.: American Petroleum Institute 1979Google Scholar
  33. Sokal, R. R. and F. J. Rohlf: Biometry. The principles and practice of statistics in biological research, 2nd ed. 859 pp. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman & Co. 1981Google Scholar
  34. Soot-Ryen, T.: A report on the family Mytilidae (Pelecypoda). Allan Hancock Pacif. Exped. 20, 1–154 (1955)Google Scholar
  35. Spight, T. M.: Just another benthic study. Ecology 57, 622–623 (1976)Google Scholar
  36. Stickle, W. B., S. D. Rice and A. Moles: Bioenergetics and survival of the marine snail Thais lima during long-term oil exposure. Mar. Biol. 80, 281–289 (1984)Google Scholar
  37. Stickle, W. B., Jr., S. D. Rice, C. Villars and W. Metcalf: Bioenergetics and survival of the marine mussel, Mytilus edulis L., during long-term exposure to the water soluble fraction of Cook Inlet crude oil. In: Physiological effects of pollutant stress, Ed. by J. F. Vernberg, A. Calabrese, F. P. Thurberg and W. B. Bernberg. Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina press (in press)Google Scholar
  38. Taylor, L. R.: Aggregation, variance and the mean. Nature, Lond. 189, 732–735 (1961)Google Scholar
  39. Widdows, J., T. Bakke, B. L. Bayne, P. Donkin, D. R. Livingstone, D. M. Lowe, M. N. Moore, S. V. Evans and S. L. Moore: Responses of Mytilus edulis on exposure to the water-accommodated fraction of North Sea oil. Mar. Biol. 67, 15–31 (1982)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. E. O'Clair
    • 1
  • S. D. Rice
    • 1
  1. 1.Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center, Auke Bay Laboratory, National Marine Fisheries ServiceNOAAAuke BayUSA

Personalised recommendations