Marine Biology

, Volume 145, Issue 4, pp 657–667 | Cite as

Changes in the feeding behavior of the deposit-feeding polychaete Laeonereis acuta on soft sediments inhabited by burrowing crabs

Research Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

In this paper, we evaluate the influence of the burrowing crab Chasmagnathus granulatus on the feeding behavior, body condition, burrowing activity, and fecal production of the deposit-feeding polychaete Laeonereis acuta. Previous results and ours show that, due to crab activity, sediment organic matter decreases with depth outside a crab bed, but there were no differences inside. Also, particle sizes were smaller inside the crab bed. Polychaetes showed better body condition inside the crab bed, suggesting higher energy gain. They fed on the surface more frequently outside the crab bed than inside. However, feeding rate was higher inside the crab bed, which is consistent with the larger weight and volume of fecal pellets found inside crab bed. In both areas, the bedload sediment transport was not similar to the sediment ingested by this polychaete. A 1-month exclusion/inclusion experiment performed outside and inside the crab bed showed that the body condition of polychaetes changed between areas but that this was not directly due to crab manipulation. Thus, our results suggest that the higher sediment quality inside a crab bed can positively affect the feeding behavior of the deposit-feeding polychaete L. acuta, increasing its feeding rate and consequently enhancing its body condition.

Keywords

Organic Matter Content Sediment Transport Body Condition Polychaete Deposit Feeder 
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank J.L. Gutierrez for his field assistance, S. Cummins and two anonymous referees for their invaluable comments. Grants from the Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, CONICET (PIA 6097, PIP 0686 to O.I.) and Fundación Antorchas (A-13672/1–5 to O.I.) provided support for this project. G.P. and P.M. were supported by fellowships from CONICET (Argentina). This paper is part of the doctoral thesis of G.P. The experiments comply with the current laws of the country in which the experiments were performed.

References

  1. Bock MJ, Miller DC (1999) Particle selectivity, gut volume and the response to a step change in diet for deposit-feeding polychaetes. Limnol Oceanogr 44:1132–1138Google Scholar
  2. Bortolus A, Iribarne O (1999) Effects of the SW Atlantic burrowing crab Chasmagnathus granulatus on a Spartina salt marsh. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 178:78–88Google Scholar
  3. Botto F, Iribarne O (1999) Effect of the burrowing crab Chasmagnathus granulata (Dana) on the benthic community of a SW Atlantic coastal lagoon. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 41:263–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Botto F, Iribarne O (2000) Contrasting effects of two burrowing crabs (Chasmagnathus granulata and Uca uruguayensis) on sediment composition and transport in estuarine environments. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 51:141–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Botto F, Iribarne O, Martinez M, Dehley K, Carrete M (1998) The effect of migratory shorebirds on the benthic species of three southwestern Atlantic Argentinean estuaries. Estuaries 21:700–709Google Scholar
  6. Botto F, Palomo G, Iribarne O, Martinez M (2000) The effect of SW Atlantic burrowing crabs on habitat use and foraging activity of migratory shorebirds. Estuaries 23:208–215Google Scholar
  7. Cammen LM (1980) Ingestion rate: an empirical model for aquatic deposit feeders and detritivores. Oecologia 44:303–310Google Scholar
  8. Conover WJ (1980) Practical nonparametric statistics, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Crisp DJ (1971) Energy flow measurements. In: Holme NA, McIntyre AD (eds) Methods for study of marine benthos. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 197–279Google Scholar
  10. Dade WB, Jumars PA, Penry DL (1990) Supply-side optimization: maximizing absorpative rates. In: Hughes RN (ed) Behavioral mechanisms of food selection. Springer, New York Heidelberg Berlin, pp 531–555Google Scholar
  11. Dauer DM, Maybury CA, Ewing RM (1981) Feeding behavior and general ecology of several spionid polychaetes from the Chesapeake Bay. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 54:21–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Emerson CW (1991) A method for the measurement of bedload sediment transport and passive faunal transport on intertidal sandflats. Estuaries 14:361–371Google Scholar
  13. Fasano JL, Hernández MA, Isla FI, Schnack EJ (1982) Aspectos evolutivos y ambientales de la laguna Mar Chiquita (Provincia de Buenos Aires, Argentina). Oceanol Acta [Spec Publ]:285–292Google Scholar
  14. Grant J (1981) Dynamics of competition among estuarine sand-burrowing amphipods. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 49:255–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gutierrez J, Palomo G, Iribarne O (2000) Patterns of abundance and seasonality of polychaetes in a southwestern Atlantic estuarine epibenthic shell bed. Bull Mar Sci 67:165–174Google Scholar
  16. Iribarne O, Bortolus A, Botto F (1997) Between-habitat differences in burrow characteristics and trophic modes in the southwestern Atlantic burrowing crab Chasmagnathus granulata. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 155:137–145Google Scholar
  17. Jensen KT, André C (1993) Field and laboratory experiments on interactions among infaunal polychaete, Nereis diversicolor, and two amphipods, Corophium volutator and C. arenarium: effects on survival, recruitment and migration. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 168:259–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jumars PA (1993) Gourmands of mud: diet selection in marine deposit feeders. In: Hughes RN (ed) Diet selection: an interdisciplinary approach to foraging behaviour. Blackwell, London, pp 124–156Google Scholar
  19. Karrh RR, Miller DC (1994) Functional response of a surface deposit feeder, Saccoglossus kowalevskii. Limnol Oceanogr 39:1455–1464Google Scholar
  20. Kihslinger RL, Woodin SA (2000) Food patches and a surface deposit feeding spionid polychaete. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 201:233–239Google Scholar
  21. Leniham HS, Micheli F (2001) Soft-sediment communities. In: Bertness MD, Gaines SD, Hay ME (eds) Marine community ecology. Sinauer, Sunderland,Mass., USAGoogle Scholar
  22. Levington JL (1989) Deposit feeding and coastal oceanography. In: Lopez G, Taghon G, Levington J (eds) Lecture notes on coastal and estuarine studies: ecology of marine deposit feeders. Springer, New York Heidelberg Berlin, pp 1–23Google Scholar
  23. Lopez GR, Levington JL (1987) Ecology of deposit-feeding animals in marine sediments. Q Rev Biol 62:235–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lopez G, Tantichodok P, Cheng I (1989) Radiotracer methods for determining utilization of sedimentary organic matter by deposit feeders. In: Lopez G, Taghon G, Levington J (eds) Lecture notes on coastal and estuarine studies: ecology of marine deposit feeders. Springer, New York Heidelberg Berlin, pp 149–170Google Scholar
  25. Luckenbach MW, Huggett DV, Zobrist EC (1988) Sediment transport, biotic modifications and selection of grain size in a surface deposit-feeder. Estuaries 11:134–139Google Scholar
  26. Manly BFJ, McDonald LL, Thomas DL (1993) Resource selection by animals. Statistical design and analysis for field studies. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Miller DC (1989) Abrasion effects on microbes in sandy sediments. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 55:73–82Google Scholar
  28. Miller DC, Sternberg RW (1988) Field measurements of the fluid and sediment-dynamic environment of a benthic deposit feeder. J Mar Res 46:771–796Google Scholar
  29. Miller DC, Jumars PA, Nowell RM (1984) Effects of sediment transport on deposit feeding: scaling arguments. Limnol Oceanogr 29:1202–1217Google Scholar
  30. Miron G, Desrosiers G (1990) Distributions and population structures of two intertidal estuarine polychaetes in the lower St. Lawrence Estuary, with special reference to environmental factors. Mar Biol 105:297–306Google Scholar
  31. Neter J, Wasserman W, Kutner MH (1990) Applied linear models, regression, analysis of variance, and experimental designs. Irwin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  32. Owen J (1980) Feeding strategy. The Unversity of Chicago Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. Palmer MA (1988) Dispersal of marine meiofauna: a review and conceptual model explaining passive transport and active emergence with implications for recruitment. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 48:81–91Google Scholar
  34. Palomo G, Iribarne O (2000) Sediment bioturbation by polychaete feeding may promote sediment stability. Bull Mar Sci 67:249–257Google Scholar
  35. Palomo G, Iribarne O, Martinez M (1999) The effect of seabirds guano on the benthic communities of a SW Atlantic coastal lagoon. Bull Mar Sci 65:119–128Google Scholar
  36. Palomo G, Botto F, Navarro D, Escapa M, Iribarne O (2003) The predator–prey interaction between migratory shorebirds and the polychaete Laeonereis acuta is modified by burrowing crabs. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 290:211–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rice DL, Rhoads DC (1989) Early diagenesis of organic matter and the nutritional value of sediment. In: Lopez G, Taghon G, Levinton J (eds) Lecture notes on coastal and estuarine studies: ecology of marine deposit feeders. Springer, New York Heidelberg Berlin, pp 59–97Google Scholar
  38. Riordan TJ Jr, Lindsay SM (2002) Feeding responses to particle-bound cues by a deposit-feeding spionid polychaete Dipolydora quadrilobata (Jacobi, 1883). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 277:779–795Google Scholar
  39. Rowden AA, Jago C, Jones SE (1988) The role of Callianassa subterranea (Montagu) (Thalassinidea) in sediment resuspension in the North Sea. Cont Shelf Res 18:1365–1380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Scaps P, Brenot S, Retiene C, Desroisers G (1998) Space occupation by the polychaetous annelid Perinereis cultrifera: influence of substratum heterogeneity and intraspecific interactions on burrow structure. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 78:435–449Google Scholar
  41. Schäfer W (1972) Ecology and palaeoecology of marine environments. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  42. Self RFL, Jumars PA (1988) Cross-phyletic patterns of particle selection by deposit feeders. J Mar Res 46:119–143Google Scholar
  43. Taghon GL (1978) Predicting particle selection by deposit feeders: a model and its implications. Limnol Oceanogr 23:752–759Google Scholar
  44. Taghon GL (1992) Effects of animal density and supply of deposited and suspended food particles on feeding, growth and small-scale distributions of two spionid polychaetes. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 162:77–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Taghon GL, Greene RB (1992) Utilization of deposit and suspended particulate matter by benthic interface feeders. Limnol Oceanogr 37:1370–1391Google Scholar
  46. Taghon GL, Jumars PA (1984) Variable ingestion and its role in optimal foraging behavior of marine deposit feeders. Ecology 65:549–558Google Scholar
  47. Tamaki A, Miyamoto S, Yamazaki T, Nojima S (1992) Abundance pattern of the ghost shrimp Callianassa japonica Ortman (Thalassinidea) and the snake eel Pisodonophis cancrivorus (Richardson) (Pisces, Ophichthidae) and their possible interaction on an intertidal sandflat. Benthos Res 43:11–22Google Scholar
  48. Tsutsumi H, Taniguchi A (1998) Feeding behavior of Capitella sp. I and its implications. In: Proceedings of the 6th international polychaete conference. Held on 2–7 August 1998, Curitiba, BrazilGoogle Scholar
  49. Underwood AJ (1997) Experiments in ecology: their logical design and interpretation using analysis of variance. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  50. Whitlatch RB (1974) Food-resource partitioning in the deposit-feeding polychaete Pectinaria gouldii. Biol Bull (Woods Hole) 147:227–235Google Scholar
  51. Williamson HG, Ockenden MC (1996) ISIS: an instrument for measuring erosion shear stress in situ. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 42:1–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zar JH (1999) Biostatistical analysis. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., USAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento de Biología (FCEyN)Universidad Nacional de Mar del PlataMar del PlataArgentina
  2. 2.Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET)Argentina
  3. 3.Centre for Research on Ecological Impacts of Coastal Cities, Marine Ecology Laboratories A11University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations