Marine Biology

, Volume 149, Issue 6, pp 1499–1507

Food and habitat choice in floating seaweed clumps: the obligate opportunistic nature of the associated macrofauna

  • Sofie Vandendriessche
  • Gina De Keersmaecker
  • Magda Vincx
  • Steven Degraer
Research Article

Abstract

The species composition of macrofauna associated with floating seaweed rafts is highly variable and influenced by many factors like spatial and temporal variation, period since detachment and probably also the seaweed species. The presence of seaweed preferences was assessed by a combination of in situ seaweed samplings and multiple-choice aquarium experiments in a controlled environment, using the seaweed-associated grazing organisms Idotea baltica and Gammarus crinicornis. Results from the sampling data confirm that the seaweed composition influences macrofaunal species composition and abundance: samples dominated by Sargassum muticum displayed higher densities but lower diversities compared to samples dominated by Ascophyllum nodosum and Fucus vesiculosus. Seaweed preference was also apparent from the multiple-choice experiments, but did not exactly match the results of the community analysis: (1) I. baltica had high densities in seaweed samples (SWS) dominated by F. vesiculosus and A. nodosum, while in the experiments, this isopod was most frequently associated with Enteromorpha sp. and F. vesiculosus, and fed mostly on S. muticum, A. nodosum and Enteromorpha sp.; (2) G. crinicornis had high densities in SWS dominated by F. vesiculosus, while in the experiments, this amphipod was most frequently associated with S. muticum, but fed most on A. nodosum and F. vesiculosus. It is clear from the laboratory experiments that preference for habitat (shelter) and food can differ among seaweed species. However, food and habitat preferences are hard to assess because grazer preference may change if choices are increased or decreased, if different sizes of grazers are used, or if predators or other grazers are added to the experiments. The effects of seaweed composition may also be blurred due to the obligate opportunistic nature of a lot of the associated macrofaunal species.

References

  1. Arrontes J (1990) Diet, food preference and digestive efficiency in intertidal isopods inhabiting macroalgae. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 139:231–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boström C, Mattila J (1999) The relative importance of food and shelter for seagrass associated invertebrates—a latitudinal comparison of habitat choice by isopod grazers. Oecologia 120:162–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bradshaw C, Collins P, Brand AR (2003) To what extent does upright sessile epifauna affect benthic biodiversity and community composition? Mar Biol 143:783–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clarke KR, Gorley RN (2001) PRIMER v5: user manual/tutorial. PRIMER-E., Plymouth Marine Laboratory, UK, pp 91Google Scholar
  5. Clarke KR, Warwick RM (1994) Change in marine communities. Plymouth Marine Laboratory, UK, pp 144Google Scholar
  6. Cronin G, Hay ME (1996) Susceptibility to herbivores depends on the recent history of both the plant and animal. Ecology 77:1531–1543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Denton AB, Chapman ARO (1991) Feeding preferences of gammarid amphipods among four species of Fucus. Mar Biol 109:503–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Druce BE, Kingsford MJ (1995) An experimental investigation on the fishes associated with drifting objects in coastal waters of temperate Australia. Bull Mar Sci 57:378–392Google Scholar
  9. Edgar GJ (1987) Dispersal of fauna and floral propagules associated with drifting Macrocystis pyrifera plants. Mar Biol 95:599–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fine ML (1970) Faunal variation on pelagic Sargassum. Mar Biol 7:112–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goecker ME, Kåll SE (2003) Grazing preferences of marine isopods and amphipods on three prominent algal species of the Baltic Sea. J Sea Res 50:309–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hay ME, Renaud PE, Fenical W (1988) Large mobile versus small sedentary herbivores and their resistance to seaweed chemical defenses. Oecologia 75:246–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hemmi A, Jormalainen V (2004) Genetic and environmental variation in performance of a marine isopod: effects of eutrophication. Oecologia 140:302–311CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Hurlbert SH (1971) The nonconcept of species diversity: a critique and alternative parameters. Ecology 52(4):577–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ingolfsson A (1995) Floating clumps of seaweed around Iceland: natural microcosms and a means of dispersal for shore fauna. Mar Biol 122:13–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ingolfsson A (1998) Dynamics of macrofaunal communities of floating seaweed clumps off western Iceland: a study of patches on the surface of the sea. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 231:119–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ingolfsson A (2000) Colonization of floating seaweed by pelagic and subtidal benthic animals in southwestern Iceland. Hydrobiologia 440:181–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ingolfsson A, Ólaffson E (1997) Vital role of drift algae in the life history of the pelagic harpacticoid Parathalestris croni in the northern North Atlantic. J Plankton Res 19:15–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jormalainen V, Honkanen T, Heikkila N (2001) Feeding preferences and performance of a marine isopod on seaweed hosts: costs of habitat specialization. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 220:219–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kingsford MJ (1992) Drift algae and small fish in coastal waters of northeastern New Zealand. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 80:41–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kingsford MJ (1995) Drift algae: a contribution to near-shore habitat complexity in the pelagic environment and an attractant for fish. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 116:297–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kingsford MJ, Choat JH (1985) The fauna associated with drift algae captured with a plankton-mesh purse seine net. Limnol Oceanogr 30:618–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nicotri ME (1980) Factors involved in herbivore food preference. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 42:13–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ólaffson E, Ingolfsson A, Steinarsdottir MB (2001) Harpacticoid copepod communities of floating seaweeds: controlling factors and implications for dispersal. Hydrobiologia 453/454:189–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Orav-Kotta H, Kotta J (2004) Food and habitat choice of the isopod Idotea baltica in the northeastern Baltic Sea. Hydrobiologia 514:79–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pavia H, Carr H, Åberg P (1999) Habitat and feeding preferences of crustacean mesoherbivores inhabiting the brown seaweed Ascophyllum nodosum (L.) Le Jol. and its epiphytic macroalgae. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 236:15–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Petersen CH, Renaud PE (1989) Analysis of feeding preference experiments. Oecologia 80:82–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ragan MA, Jensen A (1977) Quantitative studies on brown algal phenols. I. Estimation of absolute polyphenol content of Ascophyllum nodosum (L.) Le Jol. and Fucus vesiculosus (L.). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 30:209–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Safran P, Omori M (1991) Some ecological observations on fishes associated with drifting seaweed off Tohoku coast, Japan. Mar Biol 105:395–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Salemaa H (1987) Herbivory and microhabitat preferences of Idotea sp. (Isopoda) in the northern Baltic sea. Ophelia 27:1–15Google Scholar
  31. Schaffelke B, Evers D, Walhorn A (1995) Selective grazing of the isopod Idotea baltica between Fucus evanescens and F. vesiculosus from Kiel Fjord (western Baltic). Mar Biol 124:215–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stoner AW, Greening HS (1984) Geographic variation in the macrofaunal associates of pelagic Sargassum and some biogeographic implications. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 20:185–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Svensson PA, Malm T, Engkvist R (2004) Distribution and host plant preference of Idotea baltica (Pallas) (Crustacea: Isopoda) on shallow rocky shores in the central Baltic Sea. Sarsia 89:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Thiel M (2003) Rafting of benthic macrofauna: important factors determining the temporal succession of the assemblage of detached macroalgae. Hydrobiologia 503:49–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Thiel M, Gutow L (2005a) The ecology of rafting in the marine environment. I. The floating substrata. Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev 42:181–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Thiel M, Gutow L (2005b) The ecology of rafting in the marine environment. II. The rafting organisms and community. Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev 43:279–418Google Scholar
  37. Tully O, Oȁ9Ceidigh P (1986) The ecology of Idotea species (Isopoda) and Gammarus locusta (Amphipoda) on surface driftweed in Galway Bay (west of Ireland). J Mar Biol Assoc UK 66:931–942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tuomi J, Jormalainen V, Ilvessalo H (1988) Does the aquatic isopod Idotea baltica minimize the survival costs of reproduction? Oikos 52:245–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vandendriessche S, Vincx M, Degraer S (2006) Floating seaweed in the neustonic environment: a case study from Belgian coastal waters. J Sea Res 55:103–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Viejo R, Åberg P (2003) Temporal and spatial variation in the density of mobile fauna and grazing damage on the seaweed Ascophyllum nodosum. Mar Biol 142:1229–1241Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sofie Vandendriessche
    • 1
  • Gina De Keersmaecker
    • 1
  • Magda Vincx
    • 1
  • Steven Degraer
    • 1
  1. 1.Marine Biology Section, Department of BiologyGhent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations