Advertisement

Marine Biology

, Volume 156, Issue 5, pp 1049–1056 | Cite as

Feeding behavior of the ctenophore Thalassocalyce inconstans: revision of anatomy of the order Thalassocalycida

  • Holly F. Swift
  • William M. Hamner
  • Bruce H. Robison
  • Laurence P. Madin
Original Paper

Abstract

Behavioral observations using a remotely operated vehicle (ROV) in the Gulf of California in March, 2003, provided insights into the vertical distribution, feeding and anatomy of the rare and delicate ctenophore Thalassocalyce inconstans. Additional archived ROV video records from the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute of 288 sightings of T. inconstans and 2,437 individual observations of euphausiids in the Gulf of California and Monterey Canyon between 1989 and 2005 were examined to determine ctenophore and euphausiid prey depth distributions with respect to temperature and dissolved oxygen concentration [dO]. In the Gulf of California most ctenophores (96.9%) were above 350 m, the top of the oxygen minimum layer. In Monterey Canyon the ctenophores were more widely distributed throughout the water column, including the hypoxic zone, to depths as great as 3,500 m. Computer-aided behavioral analysis of two video records of the capture of euphausiids by T. inconstans showed that the ctenophore contracted its bell almost instantly (0.5 s), transforming its flattened, hemispherical resting shape into a closed bi-lobed globe in which seawater and prey were engulfed. Euphausiids entrapped within the globe displayed a previously undescribed escape response for krill (‘probing behavior’), in which they hovered and gently probed the inner surfaces of the globe with antennae without stimulating further contraction by the ctenophore. Such rapid bell contraction could be effected only by a peripheral sphincter muscle even though the presence of circumferential ring musculature was unknown for the Phylum Ctenophora. Thereafter, several live T. inconstans were collected by hand off Barbados and microscopic observations confirmed that assumption.

Keywords

Video Sequence Escape Response Remotely Operate Vehicle Ring Muscle Generic Escape 
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

The authors thank MBARI for the use of its archives and video software. The help of George Matsumoto, Tony Moss, and Jack Costello, who read early versions of this manuscript, and Mike Dawson, who assisted with later drafts, is greatly appreciated. George Matsumoto and Kevin Raskoff were invaluable in assisting with questions about MBARI archives and data. We thank the pilots of MBARI’s ROVs, Tiburon and Ventana, and the crews of the support ships R/V Western Flyer and R/V Point Lobos. Supported by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation and NOAA Grant #NA06OAR4600091.

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

References

  1. Bilbaut A, Hernandez-Nicaise M-L, Leech CA, Meech RW (1988) Membrane currents that govern smooth muscle contraction in a ctenophore. Nature 331:533–535. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/331533a0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bone Q (2005) Review: gelatinous animals and physiology. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 85:641–653. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025315405011574 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brinton E, Fleminger A, Seigel-Causy D (1986) The temperate and tropical planktonic biotas of the Gulf of California. Calif Coop Ocean Fish Invest Rep 27:228–266Google Scholar
  4. De Robertis A, Eiane K, Rau GH (2001) Eat and run: anoxic feeding and subsequent aerobic recovery by Orchomene obtusus in Saanich Inlet, British Columbia, Canada. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 219:221–227. doi: https://doi.org/10.3354/meps219221 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Decker MB, Breitburg DL, Purcell JE (2004) Effects of low dissolved oxygen on zooplankton predation by the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 280:163–172. doi: https://doi.org/10.3354/meps280163 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Escribano R, Marin VH, Irribarren C (2000) Distribution of Euphausia mucronata at the upwelling area of Peninsula Mejillones, northern Chile: the influence of the oxygen minimum layer. Sci Mar 64:69–77. doi: https://doi.org/10.3989/scimar.2000.64n169 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gasca R, Haddock HD (2004) Associations between gelatinous zooplankton and hyperiid amphipods (Crustacea: Peracarida) in the Gulf of California. Hydrobiologia 530/531:529–535. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-004-2657-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Giesecke R, González HE (2004) Feeding of Sagitta enflata and vertical distribution of chaetognats in relation to low oxygen concentrations. J Plankton Res 26:475–486. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/fbh039 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hamner WM (1975) Underwater observations of blue-water plankton: logistics, techniques, and safety procedures for divers at sea. Limnol Oceanogr 20:1045–1051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hamner WM (1984) Aspects of schooling in Euphausia superba. J Crustac Biol 4:67–74 (sp.Iss. SI 1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hamner WM (1985) The importance of ethology for investigations of marine zooplankton. Bull Mar Sci 37:414–424Google Scholar
  12. Hamner WM, Dunn DF (1980) Tropical Corallimorpharia (Coelenterata: Anthozoa): feeding by envelopment. Micronesica 16:37–41Google Scholar
  13. Hamner WM, Hamner PP (2000) Behavior of Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba): schooling, foraging, and antipredatory behavior. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 57:192–202. doi: https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-57-S3-192 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hamner WM, Madin LP, Alldredge AL, Gilmer RW, Hamner PP (1975) Underwater observations of gelatinous zooplankton: Sampling problems, feeding biology, and behavior. Limnol Oceanogr 20:907–917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hamner WM, Hamner PP, Strand SW, Gilmer RW (1983) Behavior of Antarctic krill, Euphausia superba: Chemoreception, feeding, schooling, and molting. Science 220:433–435. doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.220.4595.433 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harbison GR, Madin LP, Swanberg NR (1978) On the natural history and distribution of oceanic ctenophores. Deep Sea Res 25:233–256. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0146-6291(78)90590-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hunt JC (1999) Laboratory observations of the feeding behavior of the cirrate octopod, Grimpoteuthis sp.: one use of cirri. Veliger 42:152–156Google Scholar
  18. Hurst A (1968) The feeding mechanism and behavior of the opisthobranch Melibe leonine. Symp Zool Soc Lond 22:151–166Google Scholar
  19. Jimenez-Perez JC, Lara-Lara JR (1988) Zooplankton biomass and copepod community structure in the Gulf of California during the 1982–1983 El Niño event. Calif Coop Ocean Fish Invest Rep 29:122–128Google Scholar
  20. Kils Ü (1979) Swimming speed and escape capacity of Antarctic krill, Euphausia superba. Meeresforsch 27:264–266Google Scholar
  21. Larson RJ, Madin LP, Harbison GR (1988) In situ observations of the rare deepwater scyphomedusa Deepstaria, with description of a new species. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 68:689–699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Madin LP (1990) Overview: being there—the role of in situ science in oceanography. Mar Technol Soc J 24:19–21Google Scholar
  23. Madin LP, Harbison GR (1978) Thalassocalyce inconstans, new genus and species, an enigmatic ctenophore representing a new family and order. Bull Mar Sci 28:680–687Google Scholar
  24. Miyashita K, Aoki I, Inagaki T (1996) Swimming behavior and target strength of isada krill (Euphausia pacifica). ICES J Mar Sci 53:303–308. doi: https://doi.org/10.1006/jmsc.1996.0039 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. O’Brien DP (1987) Description of escape responses of krill (Crustacea: Euphausiacea), with particular reference to swarming behavior and the size and proximity of the predator. J Crustac Biol 7:449–457. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/1548294 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Robison BH (1992) Midwater research methods with MBARI’s ROV. Mar Technol Soc J 26:32–39Google Scholar
  27. Robison BH (1999) The coevolution of undersea vehicles and deep-sea research. Mar Technol Soc J 33:65–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Robison BH, Reisenbichler KR, Hunt JC, Haddock SHD (2003) Light production by the arm tips of the deep-sea cephalopod Vampyroteuthis infernalis. Biol Bull 205:102–109. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/1543231 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Robison BH, Raskoff KA, Sherlock RE (2005a) Adaptations for living deep: a new bathypelagic doliolid from the eastern North Pacific. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 85:595–602. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025315405011525 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Robison BH, Reisenbichler KR, Sherlock RE (2005b) Giant larvacean houses: rapid carbon transport to the deep sea floor. Science 308:1609–1611. doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1109104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sameoto D, Guglielmo L, Lewis MK (1987) Day/night vertical distribution of euphausiids in the eastern tropical Pacific. Mar Biol (Berl) 96:235–245. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00427023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Seipel K, Schmid V (2005) Evolution of striated muscle: jellyfish and the origin of triploblasty. Dev Biol 282:14–26. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ydbio.2005.03.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shoji J, Masuda R, Yamashita Y, Tanaka M (2005) Predation on fish larvae by moon jellyfish Aurelia aurita under low dissolved oxygen concentrations. Fish Sci 71:748–753. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1444-2906.2005.01024.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Swanberg N (1974) Feeding behavior of Beroe-ovata. Mar Biol (Berl) 24:69–76. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00402849 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tamm S, Tamm SL (1989) Extracellular ciliary axonemes associated with the surface of smooth muscle cells of ctenophores. J Cell Sci 94:713–724PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Thuesen EV, Rutherford LD Jr, Brommer PL, Garrison K, Gutowska MA, Towanda T (2005a) Intragel oxygen promotes hypoxia tolerance of scyphomedusae. J Exp Biol 208:2475–2482. doi: https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.01655 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Thuesen EV, Rutherford LD Jr, Brommer PL (2005b) The role of aerobic metabolism and intragel oxygen in hypoxia tolerance of three ctenophores: Pleurobranchia bachei, Bolinopsis infundibulum and Mnemiopsis leidyi. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 85:627–633. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025315405011550 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Vinogradov ME, Shushkina EA (2002) Vertical distribution of gelatinous macroplankton in the North Pacific observed by manned submersibles Mir-1 and Mir-2. J Oceanogr 58:295–303. doi: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015813809541 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vinogradov GM, Vinogradov ME, Musaeva EI (2004) New zooplankton studies in the Guaymas Basin (Gulf of California). Oceanology 44:679–689 (Transl from Okeanologiva 44:723–733)Google Scholar
  40. Youngbluth MJ, Båmstedt U (2001) Distribution, abundance, behavior and metabolism of Periphylla periphylla, a mesopelagic coronate medusa in a Norwegian fjord. Hydrobiologia 451:321–333. doi: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011874828960 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2009

Open AccessThis is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Holly F. Swift
    • 1
  • William M. Hamner
    • 2
  • Bruce H. Robison
    • 3
  • Laurence P. Madin
    • 4
  1. 1.School of Natural SciencesUniversity of California MercedMercedUSA
  2. 2.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of California Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.Monterey Bay Aquarium Research InstituteMoss LandingUSA
  4. 4.Woods Hole Oceanographic InstitutionWoods HoleUSA

Personalised recommendations