Marine Biology

, Volume 157, Issue 7, pp 1513–1524 | Cite as

Comparing macroalgal food and habitat choice in sympatric, tube-building amphipods, Ampithoe lacertosa and Peramphithoe humeralis

  • P. Sean McDonaldEmail author
  • Brian L. Bingham
Original Paper


For small tube-building amphipods that live on the algae they consume, food and habitat are tightly linked. This study compared two closely related amphipods to determine whether the species’ algal preferences are based on the food value of the algae or on some other aspect of their algal habitat. Ampithoe lacertosa and Peramphithoe humeralis are both abundant on Shannon Point beach (Anacortes, Washington, USA; 48°30.542′ N, 122°41.070′ W) but specialize on different algae. In observations and laboratory experiments conducted July–September 1997, 2007, and 2008, the two species exhibited markedly different choices of food and habitat when offered six common macroalgae. Ampithoe lacertosa ate all algae offered, but preferentially built tubes on the green alga Ulva lactuca. Survival was relatively low among juveniles maintained on single species diets, except when they were fed Mazzaella splendens. Conversely, P. humeralis consumed primarily the brown kelp Saccharina latissima, Alaria marginata, and Desmarestia ligulata and preferred those species for tube building. Juvenile P. humeralis could not survive on a diet of U. lactuca or M. splendens. While A. lacertosa builds simple, temporary tubes and relocates frequently, P. humeralis is a highly thigmotactic species that builds long-term, complex tubes on the alga it prefers to eat. Feeding and habitat preferences of the two species were not clearly linked to nitrogen content of the algae, C:N ratio, or toughness of the algal tissue. Instead, preferences of the species may be related to their mobility and the permanence of the tubes they build. Ampithoe lacertosa and P. humeralis also use different feeding strategies; the former appears to mix algae to produce a high-quality diet, while the latter is more selective and has a capacity for compensatory feeding. The species are abundant on the same protected rocky shores, but specialize on different algae for habitat and food. Results suggest that the nutritional requirements of these sympatric mesograzers differ considerably and even closely related species can exhibit divergent behavioral strategies.


Juvenile Survivorship Habitat Choice Amphipod Species Adult Abundance Choice Assay 
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.



The first author was supported by National Science Foundation grant OCE-9424050 (Research Experience for Undergraduates program). C. Staude, G. Muller-Parker, K. Van Alstyne, and G. Jensen gave helpful information and suggestions. We thank D. Reed for providing published data. S. Sulkin provided space at the Shannon Point Marine Center. Comments from K. Holsman, G. Jensen, T. Loher, and three anonymous reviewers improved the manuscript.

Supplementary material

227_2010_1425_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (241 kb)
(PDF 234 kb)


  1. Amsler CD, McClintock JB, Baker BJ (1998) Chemical defense against herbivory in the Antarctic marine macroalgae Iridaea cordata and Phyllophara antarctica (Rhodophyceae). J Phycol 34:53–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnard JL (1965) Marine amphipoda of the family Ampithoidae from southern California. Proc US Nat Mus 118:1–46Google Scholar
  3. Barrett BE (1966) A contribution to the knowledge of the amphipodous crustacean Ampithoe valida Smith (1873). Dissertation, University of New HampshireGoogle Scholar
  4. Bell SS (1991) Amphipods as insect equivalents? An alternative view. Ecology 72:350–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bingham BL, Braithwaite LF (1986) Defense adaptations of the dendrochirote holothurian Psolus chitonoides Clark. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 98:311–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brawley SH (1992) Mesoherbivores. In: John DM, Hawkins SJ, Price JH (eds) Systematics association special volume. Clarendon, Oxford, pp 235–263Google Scholar
  7. Brawley SH, Adey WH (1981) The effect of micrograzers on algal community structure in a coral reef microcosm. Mar Biol 61:167–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buschmann AH (1990) Intertidal macroalgae as refuge and food for Amphipoda in central Chile. Aquat Bot 36:237–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clarke KR, Warwick RM (2001) Change in marine communities: an approach to statistical analysis and interpretation. PRIMER-E, PlymouthGoogle Scholar
  10. Conover WJ (1980) Practical nonparametric statistics, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Croker RA (1967) Niche diversity in five sympatric species of intertidal amphipods (Crustacea: Haustoriidae). Ecol Monogr 37:173–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cronin G, Hay ME (1996) Effects of light and nutrient availability on the growth, secondary chemistry, and resistance to herbivory of two brown seaweeds. Oikos 77:93–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cruz-Rivera E, Hay ME (2000a) The effects of diet mixing on consumer fitness: macroalgae, epiphytes, and animal matter as food for marine amphipods. Oecologia 123:252–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cruz-Rivera E, Hay ME (2000b) Can quantity replace quality? Food choice, compensatory feeding, and fitness of marine mesograzers. Ecology 81:201–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Dayton PK, Tegner MJ (1989) Bottoms beneath troubled waters: benthic impacts of the 1982–1984 El Niño in the temperate zone. In: Glynn PW (ed) Global consequences of the 1982–83 El Niño -southern oscillation. Elsevier, Miami, pp 433–472Google Scholar
  17. Duffy JE (1990) Amphipods on seaweeds: partners or pests? Oecologia 85:267–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Duffy JE, Hay ME (1990) Seaweed adaptations to herbivory. Bioscience 40:368–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Duffy JE, Hay ME (1991) Food and shelter as determinants of food choice by an herbivorous marine amphipod. Ecology 72:1286–1298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Duffy JE, Hay ME (1994) Herbivore resistance to seaweed chemical defense: the roles of mobility and predation risk. Ecology 75:1304–1319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Duffy JE, Hay ME (2000) Strong impacts of grazing amphipods on the organization of a benthic community. Ecol Monogr 70:237–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Edgar GJ (1992) Patterns of colonization of mobile epifauna in a Western Australian seagrass bed. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 157:225–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gaines SD (1985) Herbivory and between-habitat diversity: the differential effectiveness of defenses in a marine plant. Ecology 66:473–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Graham MH (2002) Prolonged reproductive consequences of short-term biomass loss in seaweeds. Mar Biol 140:901–911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Griffiths CS (1979) A redescription of the kelp curler Ampithoe humeralis (Crustacea, Amphipoda) from South Africa and its relationship to Macropisthopous. Ann S Afr Mus 78:131–138Google Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Hay ME (1991) Fish-seaweed interactions on coral reefs: effects of herbivorous fishes and adaptations of their prey. In: Sale PF (ed) The ecology of fishes on coral reefs. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 96–119Google Scholar
  28. Hay ME (1992) The role of seaweed chemical defenses in the evolution of feeding specialization and in the mediation of complex interactions. In: Paul VJ (ed) Ecological roles of marine natural products. Comstock, New York, pp 93–118Google Scholar
  29. Hay ME, Fenical W (1988) Marine plant-herbivore interactions: the ecology of chemical defense. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 18:111–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hay ME, Steinberg PD (1992) The chemical ecology of plant-herbivore interactions in marine versus terrestrial communities. In: Rosenthal GA, Berenbaum MR (eds) Herbivores: their interactions with secondary plant metabolites: evolutionary and ecological processes, vol 2, 2nd edn. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 371–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hay ME, Duffy JE, Pfister CA, Fenical W (1987) Chemical defense against different marine herbivores: are amphipods insect equivalents? Ecology 68:1567–1580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hay ME, Paul VJ, Lewis SM, Gustafson K, Tucker J, Trindell RN (1988a) Can tropical seaweeds reduce herbivory by growing at night? Diel patterns of growth, nitrogen content, herbivory, and chemical versus morphological defenses. Oecologia 75:233–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hay ME, Renaud PE, Fenical W (1988b) Large mobile versus small sedentary herbivores and their resistance to seaweed chemical defenses. Oecologia 75:246–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hay ME, Pawlik JR, Duffy JE, Fenical W (1989) Seaweed-herbivore-predator interactions: host-plant specialization reduces predation on small herbivores. Oecologia 81:418–427Google Scholar
  35. Hay ME, Duffy JE, Fenical W (1990) Host-plant specialization decreases predation on a marine amphipod: an herbivore in plant’s clothing. Ecology 71:733–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hay ME, Kappel QE, Fenical W (1994) Synergisms in plant defenses against herbivores: interactions of chemistry, calcification, and plant quality. Ecology 75:1714–1726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Heller SS (1968) Some aspects of the biology and development of Ampithoe lacertosa (Crustacea: Amphipoda). Thesis, University of Washington, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  38. Holmlund MB, Peterson CH, Hay ME (1990) Does algal morphology affect amphipod susceptibility to fish predation? J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 138:65–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kozloff EN (1996) Marine invertebrates of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  40. Littler M, Littler D (1980) The evolution of thallus form and survival strategies in benthic marine macroalgae: field and laboratory tests of a functional form model. Am Nat 116:25–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Main KL (1987) Predator avoidance in seagrass meadows: prey behavior, microhabitat selection, and cryptic coloration. Ecology 68:170–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McArdle BH (1988) The structural relationship: regression in biology. Can J Zool 66:2329–2339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nelson WG (1979a) Experimental studies of selective predation on amphipods: consequences for amphipod distribution and abundance. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 38:225–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nelson WG (1979b) A comparative study of amphipods in seagrasses from Florida to Nova Scotia. Bull Mar Sci 30:80–89Google Scholar
  45. Nicotri ME (1980) Factors involved in herbivore food preference. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 42:13–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pelletreau KN, Muller-Parker G (2002) Sulfuric acid in the phaeophyte alga Desmarestia munda deters feeding by the sea urchin Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis. Mar Biol 141:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Poore AGB (2005) Scales of dispersal among hosts in a herbivorous marine amphipod. Aust Ecol 30:219–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Poore AGB, Steinberg PD (1999) Preference-performance relationships and effects of host plant choice in an herbivorous marine amphipod. Ecol Monogr 68:443–464Google Scholar
  49. Poore AGB, Steinberg PD (2001) Host plant adaptation in a herbivorous marine amphipod: genetic potential not realized in field populations. Evolution 55:68–80Google Scholar
  50. Poore AGB, Hill NA, Sotka EE (2008) Phylogenetic and geographic variation in host breadth and composition by herbivorous amphipods in the family Amphithoidae. Evolution 62–1:21–38Google Scholar
  51. 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
  52. Scagel RF (1967) Guide to the common seaweeds of British Columbia. British Columbia Provincial Museum, VictoriaGoogle Scholar
  53. Skutch AF (1926) On the habits and ecology of the tube-building amphipod Ampithoe rubricata Montagu. Ecology 7:481–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sotka EE (2007) Restricted host use by the herbivorous amphipod Peramphithoe tea is motivated by food quality and abiotic refuge. Mar Biol 151:1831–1838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sotka EE, Hay ME (2002) Geographic variation among herbivore populations in tolerance for a chemically rich seaweed. Ecology 83:2721–2735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Steinberg PD (1984) Algal chemical defense against herbivores: allocation of phenolic compounds in the kelp Alaria marginata. Science 223:405–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Steneck RS, Watling L (1982) Feeding capabilities and limitations of herbivorous molluscs: a functional group approach. Mar Biol 68:299–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Stoner AW (1979) Species-specific predation on amphipod crustacea by the pinfish Lagodon rhomboides: mediation by macrophyte standing crop. Mar Biol 55:201–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Taylor RB (1998) Short-term dynamics of a seaweed epifaunal assemblage. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 227:67–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Taylor RB, Brown PJ (2006) Herbivory in the gammarid amphipod Aora typica: relationships between consumption rates, performance and abundance across ten seaweed species. Mar Biol 149:455–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tegner MJ, Dayton PK (1987) El Nino effects on southern California kelp forest communities. Adv Ecol Res 17:243–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Van Alstyne KL (1988) Herbivore grazing increases polyphenolic defenses in the intertidal brown alga Fucus distichus. Ecology 68:655–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Van Alstyne KL (1989) Adventitious branching as an herbivore-induced defense in the intertidal brown alga Fucus distichus. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 56:169–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Van Alstyne KL, Houser LT (2003) Dimethylsulfide release during macroinvertebrate grazing and its role as an activated chemical defense. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 250:175–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Van Alstyne KL, Pelletreau KN (2000) Effects of nutrient enrichment on growth and phlorotannin production in Fucus gardneri embryos. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 206:33–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Van Alstyne KL, McCarthy JJ, Hustead CL, Duggins DO (1999) Geographic variation in polyphenolic levels of Northestern Pacific kelps and rockweeds. Mar Biol 133:371–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Van Alstyne KL, Wolfe GV, Friedenberg TL, Neill A, Hicken C (2001) Activated defense systems in marine macroalgae: evidence for an ecological role for DMSP cleavage. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 213:53–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Whittam TS, Siegel-Causey D (1981) Species incidence functions and Alaskan seabird colonies. J Biogeogr 8:421–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Aquatic and Fishery SciencesUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Environmental SciencesWestern Washington UniversityBellinghamUSA

Personalised recommendations