Advertisement

Marine Biology

, Volume 146, Issue 6, pp 1223–1234 | Cite as

Evidence of a new feeding mode in western sandpiper (Calidris mauri) and dunlin (Calidris alpina) based on bill and tongue morphology and ultrastructure

  • Robert W. ElnerEmail author
  • Peter G. Beninger
  • Daniel L. Jackson
  • Tracy M. Potter
Research Article

Abstract

Sandpipers of the genus Calidris tend to have similar body shapes and use narrow, tubular bills to feed on invertebrates in aquatic habitats over an extensive migratory range. Highly plastic foraging behaviours have been displayed but the associations between diet and feeding mechanics are less well understood. Here, scanning electron microscopy was used to relate the ultrastructure of the bills and tongues of two sympatric congeners, western sandpiper (C. mauri) and dunlin (C. alpina), to function and elucidate the sensory and mechanical basis to feeding. The morphology of the relatively larger, more robust bill of the dunlin suggests specialization for probing although both species are known to feed on epifaunal and infaunal prey. In general, external and internal bill features appear similar for the congeners and the microstructure of taste bud and salivary gland complexes in their mouth cavities correspond to descriptions for other birds. However, the tongues of the two species are remarkable for their distinctive micro-structural details as well as copious mucus and extraneous material. In particular, each species has unique tongue papillae, and the keratinized lateral spines along the edges and at the tips of the western sandpiper tongue are markedly longer and denser than for those of the dunlin. Based on the unique features of the tongues and associated observations, inter-species differences in foraging performance can be inferred. Further, evidence suggests that the western sandpiper, and, to a lesser extent, the dunlin, deposit feed on surficial biofilm materials, as opposed to incidentally imbibing such materials while targeting epifaunal prey. Commensurate with the evidence, a novel functional and mechanistic case for unfiltered biofilm grazing in birds is proposed.

Keywords

Extracellular Polymeric Substance Meiofauna Distal Extremity Stopover Site Harpacticoid Copepod 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank S. Schneider for making the collections of shorebirds (in full compliance with the laws of Canada, under the authority of Special Permit No. PK BC 92/13 issued by Environment Canada’s Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) with the protocol approved by the University of British Columbia Committee on Animal Care). P.M. Whitehead prepared the figures. We benefited from insightful discussions with H. Berkhoudt, D.B. Lank, T. Piersma, and G.A. Zweers during the course of the research and constructive criticisms from R.W. Butler, S. Nebel, T.S. Sutherland, and R.C. Ydenberg regarding the manuscript. Dr. M.A. Rubega and an anonymous referee provided valuable comment while the manuscript was in review. A Network Award from the CWS Chair in Wildlife Ecology at Simon Fraser University to P.G.B. facilitated our study.

References

  1. Alerstam T (1990) Bird migration. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Baird BH, Thistle D (1986) Uptake of bacterial extracellular polymer by a deposit-feeding holothurian (Isostichopus badionotus). Mar Biol 92:183–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker MC (1977) Shorebird food habits in the eastern Canadian Arctic. Condor 79:56–62Google Scholar
  4. Berkhoudt H (1985) Structure and function of avian taste receptors. In: King AS, McLelland J (eds) Form and function in birds, vol 3. Academic Press, London, pp 463–495Google Scholar
  5. Bolze VG (1968) Anordnung und Bau der Herbstschen Kõrperchen in Limicolenschnäbeln im Zusammenhang mit der Nahrungsfindung. Zool Anz 18:313–355Google Scholar
  6. Burton PJK (1974) Feeding and the feeding apparatus in waders: a study of anatomy and adaptations in the Charadrii. British Museum (Natural History), LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Butler RW, Campbell RW (1987) The birds of the Fraser River delta: populations, ecology and international significance. Can Wildl Serv Occas Pap 65Google Scholar
  8. Castro G, Myers JP, Ricklefs RE (1992) Ecology and energetics of sanderlings migrating to four latitudes. Ecology 73:833–844Google Scholar
  9. Couch AB (1966) Feeding ecology of four species of sandpipers in western Washington. Master’s thesis, University of WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  10. Daborn GR, Amos CL, Brylinsky M, Christian H, Drapeau G, Faas RW, Grant J, Long B, Paterson DM, Perillo GME, Piccolo MC (1993) An ecological cascade effect: migratory birds affect stability of intertidal sediments. Limnol Oceanogr 38:225–231Google Scholar
  11. Decho AW (1990) Microbial exopolymer secretions in ocean environments: their role(s) in food webs and marine processes. Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev 28:73–153Google Scholar
  12. Decho AW (1994) Molecular-scale events influencing the macroscale cohesiveness of exopolymers. In: Krumbein WE, Paterson DM, Stal LJ (eds) Biostabilisation of sediments. BIS, Oldenberg, pp 135–148Google Scholar
  13. Decho AW, Herndl GJ (1995) Microbial activities and the transformation of organic matter within mucilaginous material. Sci Total Environ 165:33–42Google Scholar
  14. Decho AW, Lopez GR (1993) Exopolymer microenvironments of microbial flora: multiple and interactive effects on trophic relationships. Limnol Oceanogr 38:1633–1645Google Scholar
  15. Decho AW, Moriarty DJW (1990) Bacterial expolymer utilization by a harpacticoid copepod: a methodology and results. Limnol Oceanogr 35:1039–1049Google Scholar
  16. Dodd SL, Colwell MA (1996) Seasonal variation in diurnal and nocturnal distribution of nonbreeding shorebirds at North Humbolt Bay, California. Condor 98:196–207Google Scholar
  17. Erwin RM (1996) Dependence of waterbirds and shorebirds on shallow-water habitats in the mid-Atlantic coastal region: an ecological profile and management recommendations. Estuaries 19:213–219Google Scholar
  18. Furness RW, Galbraith H, Gibson IP, Metcalfe NB (1986) Recent changes in numbers of waders on the Clyde Estuary, and their significance for conservation. Proc R Soc Edinb 90B:171–184Google Scholar
  19. Gerritsen AFC (1988) Feeding techniques and the anatomy of the bill in sandpipers (Calidris). PhD thesis, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  20. Gerritsen AFC, Heezik YM van (1985) Substrate preference and substrate relative to foraging behaviour in three Calidris species. Neth J Zool 35:671–692Google Scholar
  21. Gerritsen AFC, Meiboom A (1986) The role of touch in prey density estimation by Calidris alba. Neth J Zool 36:530–562Google Scholar
  22. Gerritsen AFC, Sevenster JG (1985) Foraging behaviour and bill anatomy in sandpipers. Fortschr Zool 30:237–240Google Scholar
  23. Gerritsen AFC, Heezik YM van, Swennen C (1983) Chemoreception in two further Calidris species (C. maritima and C. canutus). Neth J Zool 33:485–496Google Scholar
  24. Heezik YM van, Gerritsen AFC, Swennen C (1983) The influence of chemoreception on the foraging behaviour of two species of sandpiper, Calidris alba and Calidris alpina. Neth J Sea Res 17:47–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hoagland KD, Rosowski JR, Gretz MR, Roemer SC (1993) Diatom extracellular polymeric substances: function, fine structure, chemistry and physiology. J Phycol 29:537–566Google Scholar
  26. Hoerschelmann H (1970) Schnabelform und Nahrungserwerb bei Schnepfenvõgeln (Charadriidae und Scolopacidae). Zool Anz 184:302–327Google Scholar
  27. Hoerschelmann H (1972) Strukturen der Schnabelkammer bei Schnepfenvõgeln (Charadriidae und Scolopacidae). Z Wiss Zool 185:105–121Google Scholar
  28. Holmes RT (1966) Feeding ecology of the red-backed sandpiper (Calidris alpina) in Arctic Alaska. Ecolocharacteristics 47:32–45Google Scholar
  29. Hui CA, Beyer WN (1998) Sediment ingestion of two sympatric shorebird species. Sci Total Environ 224:227–233Google Scholar
  30. Jenkin PM (1957) The filter feeding and food of flamingoes (Phoenicopteri). Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 240:401–493Google Scholar
  31. Kooloos JGM, Kraaijeveld AR, Langenbach GEJ, Zweers GA (1989) Comparative mechanics of filter feeding in Anas platyrhynchos, Anas clypeata and Aythya fuligula (Aves, Anseriformes). Zoomorphology 108:269–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Leake LD (1975) Comparative histology: an introduction to the microscopic structure of animals. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. Mercier F, McNeil R (1994) Seasonal variations in intertidal density of invertebrate prey in a tropical lagoon and effects of shorebird predation. Can J Zool 72:1755–1763Google Scholar
  34. Mouritsen KN (1993) Diurnal and nocturnal prey detection by dunlins Calidris alpina. Bird Study 40:212–215Google Scholar
  35. Page G (1974) Age, sex, molt and migration of dunlins at Bolinas Lagoon. West Birds 5:1–12Google Scholar
  36. Page G, Fearis B (1971) Sexing western sandpipers by bill length. Bird-Banding 42:297–298Google Scholar
  37. Paton DC (1980) The importance of manna, honeydew and lerp in the diets of honeyeaters. Emu 80:213–226Google Scholar
  38. Paton DC, Collins BG (1989) Bills and tongues of nectar-feeding birds: a review of morphology, function and performance, with intercontinental comparisons. Aust J Ecol 14:473–506Google Scholar
  39. Piersma T (1994) Close to the edge: energetic bottlenecks and the evolution of migratory pathways in knots. Uitgeverij Het Open Boek, Den BurgGoogle Scholar
  40. Piersma T, Koolhaas A (1997) Shorebirds, shellfish(eries) and sediments around Griend, western Wadden Sea, 1988–1996. NIOZ Rapport 1997-7Google Scholar
  41. Piersma T, Aelst R van, Kurk K, Berkhoudt H, Maas LRM (1998) A new pressure sensory mechanism for prey detection in birds: the use of principles of seabed dynamics. Proc R Soc Lond B 265:1377–1383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Quammen ML (1984) Predation by shorebirds, fish, and crabs on invertebrates in intertidal mudflats: an experimental test. Ecology 65:529–537Google Scholar
  43. Recher HF (1966) Some aspects of the ecology of migrant shorebirds. Ecology 47:393–407Google Scholar
  44. Robert M, McNeil R, Leduc A (1989) Conditions and significance of night feeding in shorebirds and other wader birds in a tropical lagoon. Auk 106:94–101Google Scholar
  45. Rubega MA (1996) Sexual size dimorphism in red-necked phalaropes and the functional significance of non-sexual bill structure variation for feeding performance. J Morphol 228:45–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rubega MA (1997) Surface tension prey transport in shorebirds: how widespread is it? Ibis 139:488–493Google Scholar
  47. Rubega MA (2002) Feeding in birds: approaches and opportunities. In: Schwenk K (ed) Feeding. Academic Press, New York, pp 395–408Google Scholar
  48. Schneider DC (1983) The food and feeding of migratory shorebirds. Oceanus 26:38–43Google Scholar
  49. Schneider DC, Harrington BA (1981) Timing of shorebird migration in relation to prey depletion. Auk 98:801–811Google Scholar
  50. Senner SE, Norton DW, West GC (1989) Feeding ecology of western sandpipers, Calidris mauri, and dunlins, C. alpina, during spring migration at Hartney Bay, Alaska. Can Field Nat 103:372–379Google Scholar
  51. Sewell MA (1996) Detection of the impact of predation by migratory shorebirds: an experimental test in the Fraser River estuary, British Columbia (Canada). Mar Ecol Prog Ser 144:23–40Google Scholar
  52. Skagan SK, Oman HD (1996) Dietary flexibility of shorebirds in the western hemisphere. Can Field Nat 110:419–444Google Scholar
  53. Stein RW (2002) Busting a gut: age-related variation and seasonal modulation of digestive tract structure and function in the western sandpiper. Master’s thesis, Simon Fraser University, BurnabyGoogle Scholar
  54. Sutherland TF, Shepherd PCF, Elner RW (2000) Predation on meiofaunal and macrofaunal invertebrates by western sandpipers (Calidris mauri): evidence for dual foraging modes. Mar Biol 137:983–993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Taghon GL (1982) Optimal foraging by deposit-feeding invertebrates: Roles of particle size and organic coating. Oecologia 52:295–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Westall F, Rincé Y (1994) Biofilms, microbial mats and microbe-particle interactions: electron microscope observations from diatomaceous sediments. Sedimentology 41:147–162Google Scholar
  57. Wilson WH (1994) Western sandpiper (Calidris mauri). In: Poole A, Gill F (eds) The birds of North America, no. 90. The Academy of Natural Sciences, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  58. Wilson WH, Parker K (1996) The life history of the amphipod, Corophium volutator: the effects of temperature and shorebird predation. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 196:239–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zusi RL (1984) A functional and evolutionary analysis of rhynchokinesis in birds. Smithsonian Contrib Zool 395Google Scholar
  60. Zweers GA (1985) Generalism and specialism in avian mouth and pharynx. Fortschr Zool 30:189–201Google Scholar
  61. Zweers GA, Berkhoudt H (1991) Recognition of food in pecking, probing and filter-feeding birds. Acta XX Congressus Internationalis Ornithologici (1990). New Zealand Ornithological Congress Trust Board, Wellington, New Zealand, pp 897–901Google Scholar
  62. Zweers GA, Gerritsen AFC (1997) Transitions from pecking to probing mechanisms in waders. Neth J Zool 47:161–208Google Scholar
  63. Zweers GA, Vanden Berge JC (1997a) Evolutionary transitions in the trophic system of the wader-waterfowl complex. Neth J Zool 47:255–287Google Scholar
  64. Zweers GA, Vanden Berge JC (1997b) Birds at geological boundaries. Zoology 100:183–202Google Scholar
  65. Zweers GA, Berkhoudt H, Vanden Berge JC (1994) Behavioral mechanisms of avian feeding. Adv Comp Environ Physiol 18: 241–279Google Scholar
  66. Zweers G, de Jong F, Berkhoudt H, Vanden Berge JC (1995) Filter feeding in flamingos (Phoenicopterus ruber). Condor 97:297–324Google Scholar
  67. Zweers GA, Vanden Berge JC, Berkhoudt H (1997) Evolutionary patterns of avian trophic diversification. Zoology 100:25–57Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert W. Elner
    • 1
    Email author
  • Peter G. Beninger
    • 2
  • Daniel L. Jackson
    • 3
  • Tracy M. Potter
    • 4
  1. 1.Canadian Wildlife Service, Pacific Wildlife Research CentreEnvironment CanadaDeltaCanada
  2. 2.Laboratoire de Biologie Marine, Faculté des SciencesUniversité de NantesNantes Cedex 3France
  3. 3.Department of Biology, Life Sciences CentreDalhousie UniversityHalifaxCanada
  4. 4.Département de BiologieUniversité de MonctonMonctonCanada

Personalised recommendations