Advertisement

Marine Biology

, Volume 151, Issue 4, pp 1433–1443 | Cite as

The role of different types of detached macrophytes in the food and habitat choice of a surf-zone inhabiting amphipod

  • Karen R. Crawley
  • Glenn A. Hyndes
Research Article

Abstract

Allorchestescompressa is the dominant macroinvertebrate species in wrack accumulations on surf zones of south-western Australia. These amphipods were provided with a choice of macrophyte material representing brown and red algae and seagrass in a series of preference experiments in the laboratory and field. Feeding experiments showed that A. compressa exhibited a strong preference for particular types of macrophytes (P < 0.01). Amphipods primarily consumed brown algae, with 69–98% of the biomass of Ecklonia radiata and 64% of the biomass of Sargassum sp. lost over the experiments. This study has shown that the amphipod A. compressa exhibits a clear preference for brown algae over red algae and seagrass as food. In terms of habitat preference, tank experiments using a series of pair-wise comparisons showed that, in the absence of fish predators, A. compressa selected seagrass as its preferred habitat over the other types of wrack (P < 0.001). When satiated or starved, between 68 and 83 and 79 and 98% of amphipods were found in Amphibolis and Posidonia, respectively. In contrast, field-cage experiments revealed that A. compressa preferred either mixed wrack, brown algae or red algae over seagrass as a habitat (P < 0.01). The contrasts between results from the laboratory and field suggest that other factors such as the presence of predators, water flow and light could influence habitat choice in the surf zone. This study shows that allochthonous material transported to surf zones from other habitats therefore play different roles in driving secondary production in this shoreline habitat.

Keywords

Macrophyte Macroalgae Brown Alga Ulva Surf Zone 
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 acknowledge financial support from Edith Cowan University and the CSIRO Strategic Research Fund for the Marine Environment project to K.R.C. during her PhD studies. We also thank D. Brady from Edith Cowan University for statistical advice regarding Hotelling’s T2 test, and N. Loneragan, A. McLachlan and J. Valentine for their comments on the manuscript. The experiments performed in this study comply with the current laws of Australia.

References

  1. Adin R, Riera P (2003) Preferential food source utilization among stranded macroalgae by Talitrus saltator (Amphipod, Talitridae): a stable isotopes study in the northern coast of Brittany (France). East Coast Shelf Sci 56:91–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agostini S, Desjober J-M, Pergent G (1998) Distribution of phenolic compounds in the seagrass Posidonia oceanica. Phytochemistry 48:611–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bedford AP, Moore PG (1984) Macrofaunal involvement in the sublittoral decay of kelp debris: the detritivore community and species interactions. Est Coast Shelf Sci 18:97–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Behbehani MI, Croker RA (1982) Ecology of beach wrack in Northern New England with special reference to Orchestia platensis. Est Coast Shelf Sci 15:611–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bostrom 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
  6. Brown AC, McLachlan A (1990) Ecology of sandy shores. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  7. Carpenter SR (1996) Microcosm experiments have limited relevance for community and ecosystem ecology. Ecology 77:677–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Colombini I, Chelazzi L (2003) Influence of marine allochthonous input on sandy beach communities. Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev 41:115–159Google Scholar
  9. Colombini I, Aloia A, Fallaci M, Rezzoli G, Chelazzi L (2000) Temporal and spatial use of stranded wrack by the macrofauna of a tropical sandy beach. Mar Biol 136:531–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crawley KR, Hyndes GA, Ayvazian SG (2006) The influence of different volumes and types of detached macrophytes on fish community structure in surf zones of sandy beaches. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 307:233–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cronin E, Hay ME (1996) Induction of seaweed chemical defenses by amphipod grazing. Ecology 77:2287–2301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cruz-Rivera E, Hay ME (2001) Macroalgal traits and the feeding and fitness of an herbivorous amphipod: the roles of selectivity, mixing, and compensation. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 218:249–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Duffy JE, Hay ME (1991) Food and shelter as determinants of food choice by an herbivorous marine amphipod. Ecology 72:1286–1298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Duffy JE, Hay ME (1994) Herbivore resistance to seaweed chemical defense: the roles of mobility and predation risk. Ecology 75:1304–1319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Duffy JE, Hay ME (2000) Strong impacts of grazing amphipods on the organisation of a benthic community. Ecol Monogr 70:237–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dugan JE, Hubbard DM, McCrary MD, Pierson MO (2003) The response of macrofauna communities and shorebirds to macrophyte wrack subsidies on exposed sandy beaches of southern California. Est Coast Shelf Sci 58S:25–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goecker ME, Kall 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
  18. Hacker SD, Steneck RS (1990) Habitat architecture and the abundance and body-size-dependent habitat selection of a phytal amphipod. Ecology 71:2269–2285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harrison PG (1977) Decomposition of macrophyte detritus in seawater: effects of grazing by amphipods. Oikos 28:165–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harrison PG (1982) Control of microbial growth and of amphipod grazing by water-soluble compounds from leaves of Zostera marina. Mar Biol 67:225–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jormalainen V, Honkanen T, Heikkila N (2001) Feeding preferences and performance of a marine isopod on seaweeds hosts: cost of habitat specialization. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 220:219–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Klap VA, Hemminga MA, Boon JJ (2000) Retention of lignin in seagrasses: angiosperms that returned to the sea. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 194:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Koch H (1990) Aspects of the population biology of Traskorchestia traskiana (Stimpson, 1857) (Amphipoda, Talitridae) in the Pacific Northwest, U.S.A. Crustaceana 59:35–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kubanek J, Lester SE, Fenical W, Hay ME (2004) Ambiguous role of phlorotannins as chemical defenses in the brown alga Fucus vesiculosus. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 277:79–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lavery PS, Vanderklift MA (2002) A comparison of spatial and temporal patterns in epiphytic macroalgal assemblages of the seagrasses Amphibolis griffithii and Posidonia coriacea. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 236:99–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Main K (1987) Predator avoidance in seagrass meadows: prey behaviour, microhabitat selection and cryptic coloration. Ecology 68:170–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Manly BFJ (1993) Comments on design and analysis of multiple-choice feeding-preference experiments. Oecologia 93:149–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Marsden ID (1991) Kelp-sandhopper interactions on a sand beach in New Zealand. I. Drift composition and distribution. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 152:61–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mathis A, Hoback WW (1997) The influence of chemical stimuli from predators on precopulatory pairing by the amphipod, Gammarus pseudolimneaus. Ethology 103:33–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Moore PG, Francis CH (1985) Some observations on food and feeding of the supralittoral beach-hopper Orchestia gammarellus (Pallus) (Crustacea: Amphipoda). Ophelia 24:183–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Norderhaug KM, Fredriksen S, Nygaard K (2003) Trophic importance of Laminara hyperborea to kelp forest consumers and the importance of bacterial degradation to food quality. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 255:135–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Pavia H, Herman C, Aberg P (1999) Habitat and feeding preferences of crustacean mesoherbivores inhabiting the brown seaweed Ascophyllum nodosum (L.) Le Jol. and its epiphytic macroalga J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 236:15–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pennings SC, Carefoot TH, Zimmer M, Danko JP, Ziegler A (2000) Feeding preferences of supralittoral isopods and amphipods. Can J Zool 78:1918–1929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Peterson CH, Renaud PE (1989) Analysis of feeding preference experiments. Oecologia 80:82–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Polis GA, Hurd SD (1996) Allochthonous input across habitats, subsidized consumers, and apparent trophic cascades: examples from the ocean-land interface. In: Polis GA, Winemiller KO (eds) Food webs: integration of patterns and dynamics. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 275–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Polis GA, Anderson TW, Holt RD (1997) Toward an integration of landscape and food web ecology. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 28:289–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pomeroy WM, Levings CD (1980) Association and feeding relationships between Eogammarus confervicolus (Amphipoda, Gammaridae) and benthic algae on Sturgeon and Robert Banks, Fraser River Estuary. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 37:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Poore AGB, Steinberg PD (1999) Preference-performance relationships and effects of host plant choice in an herbivorous marine amphipod. Ecol Monogr 69:443–464Google Scholar
  40. Roa R (1992) Design and analysis of multiple-choice feeding-preference experiments. Oecologia 89:509–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Robertson AI, Mann KH (1980) The role of isopods and amphipods in the initial fragmentation of eelgrass detritus in Nova Scotia, Canada. Mar Biol 59:63–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Robertson AI, Lucas JS (1983) Food choice, feeding rates, and the turnover of macrophyte biomass by a surf-zone inhabiting amphipod. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 72:99–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Robertson AI, Lenanton RCJ (1984) Fish community structure and food chain dynamics in the surf-zone of sandy beaches: The role of detached macrophyte detritus. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 84:265–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sotka EE, Hay ME, Thomas JD (1999) Host-plant specialization by a non-herbivorous amphipod: advantages for the amphipod and costs for the seaweed. Oecologia 118:471–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stachowicz JJ, Hay M (1999) Reduced mobility is associated with compensatory feeding and increased diet breadth of marine crabs. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 188:169–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Steinberg PD, van Altena I (1992) Tolerance of marine invertebrate herbivores to brown algal phlorotannins in temperate Australia. Ecol Monogr 62:189–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Valentine JF, Duffy JE (2005) The central role of grazing in seagrass ecosystems. In: Larkum AWD, Orth RJ, Duarte CM (eds) Seagrasses: biology, ecology and conservation. Springer, New York, pp 463–502Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Oceanica Consulting Pty LtdNedlandsAustralia
  2. 2.Centre for Ecosystem Management, School of Natural SciencesEdith Cowan UniversityJoondalupAustralia

Personalised recommendations