Advertisement

Marine Biology

, Volume 150, Issue 3, pp 329–343 | Cite as

Trophic ecology and the related functional morphology of the deepwater medusa Periphylla periphylla (Scyphozoa, Coronata)

  • Ilka Sötje
  • Henry Tiemann
  • Ulf Båmstedt
Research Article

Abstract

Remotely operated vehicle (ROV)-based field studies on the distribution and behaviour of Periphylla periphylla Péron and Lesueur (Ann Mus Hist Nat Marseille 14:316–366, 1809), from three Norwegian fjords have been combined with on-board experiments and morphological and histological studies in order to understand the trophic ecology of this species. Field studies from one of the fjords showed that the zooplankton biomass was negatively related with P. periphylla abundance, indicating a predatory effect. The majority of zooplankton biomass tended to be distributed above the aggregation of P. periphylla, which in turn showed highest abundance at 100–200 m depth. Observation on the orientation of medusae passing the ROV when descending down in the water column at dawn and dusk, showed no consistency with the theory of diel vertical migration. Estimated metabolic demand of P. periphylla indicated a daily predation impact on the prey assemblage of 13% as an average for the fjord. In situ behavioural observations showed that the dominant tentacle posture of large medusae was straight upward, with tentacles extended to the oral–aboral body axis. The hunting mode alternates between ambush and ramming, whereby tentacle posture minimises the water turbulence that may otherwise alarm the prey. The musculature of the tentacles is well developed, with an especially strong longitudinal muscle on the oral side, facilitating fast movement of the tentacle towards the mouth. In addition, ring-, radial-, and diagonal musculatures are also present. The diagonal is probably most important for the corkscrew retraction of the tentacle, used at the moment of prey capture. Results from laboratory experiments show that different body-parts of P. periphylla vary in sensitivity for chemical and mechanical stimuli, including hydrodynamic disturbance and vibration in the surrounding water. Feeding success is facilitated by combining the vibration-sense on the tentacle tips and the marginal lappets, the touch-sense on the tentacle bases and marginal lappets, and a taste control of the captured prey at the mouthlips.

Keywords

Longitudinal Muscle Zooplankton Biomass Diel Vertical Migration Ambush Remotely Operate Vehicle 
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

Acknowledgments

We thank the crew on R.V. “Håkon Mosby” for quality working facilities. We are thankful for the support from the European Union through the TMR (Training and Mobility of Researchers) Programme (contact no. ERBFMGECT950013) and the EUROGEL-Project (contract no. EVK3-CT-2002-00074) and Norwegian Research Council project no 146994/S40 at the University of Bergen. We are grateful to R. Walter for technical assistance with electron microscopy and thankful to B.D. Johnston for the English language revision. The experiments comply with the current laws of Norway and Germany.

References

  1. Adam H, Czihak G (1964) Arbeitsmethoden der makroskopischen und mikroskopischen Anatomie. Ein Laboratoriumshandbuch für Biologen, Mediziner und technische Hilfskräfte. Fischer, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  2. Arai MN (1991) Attraction of Aurelia and Aequorea to prey. Hydrobiologia 216/217:363–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arai MN (1997) A functional biology of Scyphozoa. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Båmstedt U (1986) Chemical composition and energy content. In: Corner EDS, O’Hara SCM (eds) The biological chemistry of marine copepods (chapter 1). Claredon, Oxford, pp 1–58Google Scholar
  5. Båmstedt U, Youngbluth M (2000) Norwegian marine science goes deeper. Ocean Challenge 9(3):25–30Google Scholar
  6. Båmstedt U, Kaartwedt S, Youngbluth M (2003) An evaluation of acoustic and video methods to estimate the abundance and vertical distribution of jellyfish. J Plankton Res 25(11):1307–1318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berstad V, Båmstedt U, Martinussen MB (1995) Distribution and swimming of the jellyfishes Aurelia aurita and Cyanea capillata. In: Skojldal HR, Hopkins C, Erikstad K, Leinås HP (eds) Ecology of fjords and coastal waters. Elvesier, Amsterdam, pp 257–271Google Scholar
  8. Brodeur RD, Mills CE, Overland JE, Walters GE, Schumacher JD (1999) Evidence for a substantial increase in gelatinous zooplankton in the Bering Sea, with possible links to the climate change. Fish Oceanogr 8:296–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Costello JH (1992) Foraging mode and energetics of hydrozoan medusae. Sci Mar 56(2–3):185–191Google Scholar
  10. Costello JH, Colin SP (1994) Morphology, fluid motion and predation by the scyphomedusa Aurelia aurita. Mar Biol 121:327–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Costello JH, Colin SP (1995) Flow and feeding by swimming scyphomedusae. Mar Biol 124:399–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. D’Ambra I, Costello JH, Bentivegna F (2001) Flow and prey capture by the scyphomedusa Phyllorhiza punctata von Lendenfeld, 1884. Hydrobiologia 451:223–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Faulstich H, Trischmann H, Mayer D (1983) Preparation of tetramethylrhodaminyl-phalloidin and uptake of the toxin into short-term cultured hepatocytes by endocytosis. Exp Cell Res 144:73–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fosså JH (1992) Mass occurrence of Periphylla periphylla (Scyphozoa, Coronatae) in a Norwegian fjord. Sarsia 77:237–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fraser JH (1968) Standardization of zooplankton sampling methods at sea. In: Zooplankton sampling, part II. UNESCO Press, Paris, pp 149–168Google Scholar
  16. Gerritsen J, Strickler JR (1977) Encounter probabilities and community structure in zooplankton: a mathematical model. J Fish Res Board Can 34:73–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jarms G, Båmstedt U, Tiemann H, Martinussen MB, Fosså JH (1999) The holopelagic life cycle of the deep-sea medusa Periphylla periphylla (Scyphozoa, Coronatae). Sarsia 84:55–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jarms G, Tiemann H, Båmstedt U (2002) Development and biology of Periphylla periphylla (Scyphozoa: Coronatae) in a Norwegian fjord. Mar Biol 141:647–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lamprecht J (1999) Biologische Forschung: von der Planung bis zur Publikation. Filander, FürthGoogle Scholar
  20. Larson RJ (1979) Feeding in coronate medusae (Class Scyphozoa, Order Coronatae). Mar Behav Physiol 6:123–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Larson RJ (1986) Pelagic scyphomedusae in the Southern Ocean. Biology of the Antarctic Seas XVI. Antarct Res Ser 41:59–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Larson RJ (1991) Diet, prey selection and daily ration of Stomolophus meleagris, a filter-feeding scyphomedusa from the NE Gulf of Mexico. Estuarine Coast Shelf Sci 32:511–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Maas O (1897) Die Medusen. 21st Report on the dredging operations of the US steamer. “Albatross” during 1891. Mem Mus Harv 23:1–92Google Scholar
  24. Madin LP (1988) Feeding behavior of tentaculate predators: in situ observations and a conceptual model. Bull Mar Sci 43(3):413–429Google Scholar
  25. Mayboroda OA (1992–1993) Presumed chemoreceptor cells in secondary tentacles of Lucernaria quadricornis (Scyphozoa: Stauromedusa). Pheromones 2–3(1–4):11–16Google Scholar
  26. Mills CE (1981) Diversity of swimming behaviors in hydromedusae as related to feeding and utilization of space. Mar Biol 64:185–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mills CE (1995) Medusae, siphonophores and ctenophores as planktivorous predators in changing global ecosystems. ICES J Mar Sci 52:575–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Parsons TR, Takahashi M (1973) Biological oceanographic processes. Pergamon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  29. Perkins FO, Ramsey RW, Street SF (1971) The ultrastructure of fishing tentacle muscle in the jellyfish Chrysaora quinquecirrha: a comparison of contracted and relaxed states. J Ultrastruct Res 35:431–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Péron F, Lesueur CA (1809) Histoire générale et particuliére de tout les animaux qui composent les famille des Méduses. Ann Mus Hist Nat Mars 14:316–366Google Scholar
  31. Peteya DJ (1975) The ciliary-cone sensory cell of anemones and cerianthids. Tissue Cell 7(2):243–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Purcell JE, Sturdevant MV (2001) Prey selection and dietary overlap among zooplanktivorous jellyfish and juvenile fishes in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 210:67–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Raskoff KA (2002) Foraging, prey capture, and gut contents of the mesopelagic narcomedusa Solmissus spp. (Cnidaria Hydrozoa). Mar Biol 141:1099–1107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Russel FS (1970) The medusae of the British Isles. II, Pelagic Scyphozoa with a supplement to the first volume on hydromedusae. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  35. Sørnes TA, Aksnes DL (2004) Predation efficiency in visual and tactile zooplanktivores. Limnol Oceanogr 49(1):69–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Suchman CL, Sullivan BK (1998) Vulnerability of the copepod Acartia tonsa to predation by the scyphomedusa Chrysaora quinquecirrha: effect of prey size and behaviour. Mar Biol 132:237–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Suchman CL, Sullivan BK (2000) Effect of prey size on vulnerability of copepods to predation by the scyphomedusae Aurelia aurita and Cyanea sp. J Plankton Res 22:2289–2306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sullivan BK, Suchman CL, Costello JH (1997) Mechanics of prey selection by ephyra of the scyphomedusa Aurelia aurita. Mar Biol 130:213–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Thiel ME (1936) Scyphomedusae. In: Bronns HG (ed) Klassen und Ordnungen des Tierreichs. Zweiter Band, II. Abteilung, 2. Buch. Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft m.b.H, Leipzig, pp 1–672Google Scholar
  40. Thurston MH (1977) Depth distribution of Hyperia spinigera Bovallius, 1889 (Crustacea: Amphipoda) and medusae in the North Atlantic Ocean, with notes on the associations between Hyperia and coelenterates. In: Angel M (ed) A voyage of discovery. George Deacon 70th anniversary volume. Pergamon, Oxford, pp 499–536Google Scholar
  41. Tiemann H, Sötje I, Jarms G, Paulmann C, Epple M, Hasse B (2002) Calcium sulphate hemihydrate in statoliths of deep-sea medusae. J Chem Soc, Dalton Trans 1266–1268Google Scholar
  42. Watson GM, Hessinger DA (1991) Chemoreceptor-mediated elongation of stereocilium bundles tunes vibration-sensitive mechanoreceptors on cnidocyte-supporting cell complexes to lower frequencies. J Cell Sci 99:307–316Google Scholar
  43. Youngbluth MJ, Båmstedt U (2001) Distribution, abundance, behaviour and metabolism of Periphylla periphylla, a mesopelagic coronate medusa in a Norwegian fjord. Hydrobiologia 451:321–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Biocenter Grindel and Zoological MuseumUniversity of HamburgHamburgGermany
  2. 2.Department of BiologyUniversity of BergenBergenNorway
  3. 3.Umeå Marine Science CentreUniversity of UmeåHörneforsSweden

Personalised recommendations