Marine Biology

, Volume 157, Issue 6, pp 1301–1312 | Cite as

Why run and hide when you can divide? Evidence for larval cloning and reduced larval size as an adaptive inducible defense

Original Paper

Abstract

Predator-induced cloning (asexual reproduction), with reduced size as consequence of cloning, suggests a novel adaptation to the threat of predation. Although cloning is a common reproductive strategy of many plants and animals, cloning in response to stimuli from predators has, at present, been documented only in the larvae (plutei) of the sand dollar, Dendraster excentricus. Other studies report larval cloning in echinoderms under optimal conditions of food and temperature. A burst of asexuality should be favored when environmental conditions are conducive to growth, but it is less clear that cloning is advantageous when conditions indicate risk from predators. This study tested the hypothesis that the small size of predator-induced clones reduces vulnerability during encounters with planktivorous fish. Successful cloning was inferred from an increase in larval density, a reduction in larval size and stage, and some direct observations of budding. All clones were smaller than uncloned sibling larvae, suggesting an advantage against visual predators. Pair-wise predation trials demonstrated that planktivorous fish ate more uncloned sibling plutei than small clones. These results offer a new ecological context for asexual reproduction: rapid size reduction as a defense. If the identifiable cues for cloning in echinoderm larvae (food and predators) are linked in nature, then larval cloning may be a response to a single ecological scenario rather than two separate and unrelated conditions.

References

  1. Allen JD (2008) Size-selective predation on marine invertebrate larvae. Biological Bulletin 214Google Scholar
  2. Balser EJ (1998) Cloning by ophiuroid echinoderm larvae. Biol Bull 194:187–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benard MF (2004) Predator-induced phenotypic plasticity in organisms with complex life histories. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:651–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bergkvist J, Selander E, Pavia H (2008) Induction of toxin production in dinoflagellates: the grazer makes a difference. Oecologia 156:147–154CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bollens SM, Frost BW, Thoreson DS, Watts SJ (1992) Diel vertical migration in zooplankton—field evidence in support of the predator avoidance hypothesis. Hydrobiologia 234:33–39Google Scholar
  6. Bosch I, Rivkin RB, Alexander SP (1989) Asexual reproduction by oceanic planktotrophic echinoderm larvae. Nature 337:169–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bronmark C, Miner JG (1992) Predator-induced phenotypical change in body morphology in crucian carp. Science 258:1348–1350CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Brooks JL, Dodson SI (1965) Predation, body size, and composition of plankton. Science 150:28–35CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen MS (2008) Inducible direct plant defense against insect herbivores: a review. Insect Sci 15:101–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Craig SF, Slobodkin LB, Wray GA, Biermann CH (1997) The ‘paradox’ of polyembryony: a review of the cases and a hypothesis for its evolution. Evol Ecol 11:127–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cronin G, Hay ME (1996) Induction of seaweed chemical defense by amphipod grazing. Ecology 77:2287–2301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Robertis A, Jaffe JS, Ohman MD (2000) Size-dependent visual predation risk and the timing of vertical migration in zooplankton. Limnol Oceanogr 45Google Scholar
  13. DeMeester L, Dawidowicz P, van Gool E, Loose CJ (1999) Predator-induced behavior of zooplankton: Depth selection behavior and diel vertical migration. In: Tollrian R, Harvell CD (eds) The ecology and evolution of inducible defenses. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 160–176Google Scholar
  14. Eaves AA, Palmer AR (2003) Widespread cloning in echinoderm larvae. Nature 425:146CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Folt CL, Burns CW (1999) Biological drivers of zooplankton patchiness. Trends Ecol Evol 14:300–305CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Forward RB, Rittschof D (1999) Brine shrimp larval photoresponses involved in diel vertical migration: activation by fish mucus and modified amino sugars. Limnol Oceanogr 44:1904–1916Google Scholar
  17. Forward RB, Rittschof D (2000) Alteration of photoresponses involved in diel vertical migration of a crab larva by fish mucus and degradation products of mucopolysaccharides. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 245:277–292CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Genin A, Jaffe JS, Reef R, Franks PJS (2005) Swimming against the flow: a mechanism of zooplankton aggregation. Science 308:860–862CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Gill AB, Hart PJB (1998) Stomach capacity as a directing factor in prey size selection of three-spined stickleback. J Fish Biol 53:897–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grünbaum D (2001) Predicting availability to consumers of spatially and temporally variable resources. Hydrobiologia 480:175–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harvell CD (1986) The ecology and evolution of inducible defenses in a marine bryozoan. Am Nat 128:810–823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Highsmith RC (1982) Induced settlement and metamorphosis of sand dollar (Dendraster excentricus) larvae in predator-free sites: adult sand dollar beds. Ecology 63:329–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Iglesias C, Mazzeo N, Goyenola G, Fosalba C, De Mello FT, Garcia S, Jeppesen E (2008) Field and experimental evidence of the effect of Jenynsia multidentata, a small omnivorous-planktivorous fish, on the size distribution of zooplankton in subtropical lakes. Freshw Biol 53:1797–1807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jaeckle WB (1994) Multiple-modes of asexual reproduction by tropical and subtropical sea star larvae—an unusual adaptation for genet dispersal and survival. Biol Bull 186:62–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jang MH, Ha K, Joo G, Takamura N (2003) Toxic production of cyanobacteria is increased by exposure to zooplankton. Freshw Biol 48:1540–1550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Knott KE, Balser EJ, Jaeckle WB, Wray GA (2003) Identification of asteroid genera with species capable of larval cloning. Biol Bull 204:246–255CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Levins R (1968) Evolution in changing environments. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  28. Lima SL, Dill LM (1990) Behavioural decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Can J Zool 68:619–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Marshall DJ, Keough MJ (2008) The evolutionary ecology of offspring size in marine invertebrates. Adv Mar Biol 53:1–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McCollum SA, Leimberger JD (1997) Predator-induced morphological changes in an amphibian: predation by dragonflies affects tadpole shape and color. Oecologia 109:615–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McDonald K, Vaughn D (2010) An abrupt change in food environment induces cloning in Dendraster excentricus plutei. Biol Bull (in press)Google Scholar
  32. Menden-Deuer S (2006) Individual foraging behaviors and population distributions of planktonic predators to phytoplankton thin layers. Limnol Oceanogr 45:569–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Menden-Deuer S (2008) Spatial and temporal characteristics of plankton-rich layers in a shallow, temperate fjord. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 355:21–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Metaxas A (2001) Behaviour in flow: perspectives on the distribution and dispersion of meroplanktonic larvae in the water column. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 58:86–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Metaxas A, Young CM (1998) Response of echinoid larvae to food patches of different algal densities. Mar Biol 130:433–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Miner BG (2004) Evolution of feeding structure plasticity in marine invertebrate larvae: a possible trade-off between arm length and stomach size. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 315:117–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. O’Brien WJ (1979) The predator-prey interaction of planktivorous fish and zooplankton. Am Sci 67:572–581Google Scholar
  38. Padilla DK, Adolph SC (1996) Plastic inducible morphologies are not always adaptive: the importance of time delays in a stochastic environment. Evol Ecol 10:456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Palmer AR (1990) Effect of crab effluent and scent of damaged conspecifics on feeding, growth, and shell morphology of the Atlantic dogwhelk Nucella lapillus. Hydrobiologia 193:155–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pennington JT, Rumrill SS, Chia FS (1986) Stage specific predation upon embryos and larvae of the Pacific sand dollar, Dendraster excentricus, by 11 species of common zooplankton predators. Bull Mar Sci 39:234–240Google Scholar
  41. Ruehl CB, DeWitt TJ (2005) Trophic plasticity and fine-grained resource variation in populations of western mosquitofish, Gambusia affinis. Evol Ecol Res 7:801–819Google Scholar
  42. Schabetsberger R, Luger MS, Drozdowski G, Jagsch A (2009) Only the small survive: monitoring long-term changes in the zooplankton community of an Alpine lake after fish introduction. Biol Invasions 11:1335–1345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Selander E, Thor P, Toth GB, Pavia H (2006) Copepods induce paralytic shellfish toxin production in marine dinoflagellates. Proc R Soc Lond 273:1673–1680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Seuront L, Schmitt F, Lagadeuc Y (2001) Turbulence intermittency, small-scale phytoplankton patchiness and encounter rates in the plankton: where do we go from here? Deep Sea Res 48:1199–1215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sewell MA, Cameron MJ, McArdle B (2004) Developmental plasticity in larval development in the echinometrid sea urchin Evechinus chloroticus with varying food ration. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 309:219–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sih A (2004) A behavioral ecological view of phenotypic plasticity. In: Dewitt TJ, Scheiner SM (eds) Phenotypic plasticity: functional and conceptual approaches. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 112–125Google Scholar
  47. Strathmann RR (1971) The behavior of planktotrophic echinoderm larvae: mechanisms, regulation, and rates of suspension feeding. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 6:109–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Strathmann MF (1987) Reproduction and development of marine invertebrates of the Northern Pacific Coast. University of Washington Press, Seattle and LondonGoogle Scholar
  49. Strathmann RR (1996) Are planktonic larvae of marine benthic invertebrates too scarce to compete within species? Oceanol Acta 19:399–407Google Scholar
  50. Strathmann RR, Fenaux L, Strathmann MF (1992) Heterochronic developmental plasticity in larval sea urchins and its implications for evolution of nonfeeding larvae. Evolution 46:972–986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Suchman CL, Sullivan BK (2000) Effect of prey size on vulnerability of copepods to predation by scyphomedusae Aurelia aurita and Cyanea sp. J Plankton Res 22:2289–2306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tollrian R, Harvell CD (1999) The ecology and evolution of inducible defenses. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  53. Trussell GC (1996) Phenotypic plasticity in an intertidal snail: the role of a common crab predator. Evolution 50:448–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Van Der Stap I, Vos M, Verschoor AM, Helmsing NR, Mooij WM (2007) Induced defenses in herbivores and plants differentially modulate a trophic cascade. Ecology 88:2474–2481CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Van Donk E (2007) Chemical information transfer in freshwater plankton. Ecol Inf 2:112–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Vaughn D (2007) Predator-induced morphological defenses in marine zooplankton: a larval case study. Ecology 88:1030–1039CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Vaughn D (2009) Predator-induced larval cloning in the sand dollar Dendraster excentricus: might mothers matter? Biol Bull 217:103–114PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Vaughn D, Strathmann RR (2008) Predators induce cloning in echinoderm larvae. Science 319:1503CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Vickery MCL, McClintock JB (1998) Regeneration in metazoan larvae. Nature 394:140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Vickery MS, McClintock JB (2000) Effects of food concentration and availability on the incidence of cloning in planktotrophic larvae of the sea star Pisaster ochraceus. Biol Bull 199:298–304CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Vos M, Verschoor AM, Kooi BW, Wackers FL, DeAngelis DL, Mooij WM (2004) Inducible defenses and trophic structure. Ecology 85:2783–2794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Vos M, Vet LEM, Wackers FL, Middleburg JJ, van der Putten WH, Mooji WM, Heip CHR, Van Donk E (2006) Infochemicals structure marine, terrestrial and freshwater food webs: implications for ecological informatics. Ecol Inf 1:23–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Warkentin KM (1995) Adaptive plasticity in hatching age: a response to predation risk trade-offs. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 92:3507–3510CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Werner EE, Hall DJ (1974) Optimal foraging and the size selection of prey by bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus). Ecology 55:1042–1052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Woodson CB, McManus MA (2007) Foraging behavior can influence dispersal of marine organisms. Limnol Oceanogr 52:2701–2709Google Scholar
  66. Woodson CB, Webster DR, Weissburg MJ, Yen J (2005) Response of copepods to physical gradients associated with structure in the ocean. Limnol Oceanogr 50:1552–1564CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biology, Friday Harbor LaboratoriesUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations