Marine Biology

, 164:222 | Cite as

Using growth rates to estimate age of the sea turtle barnacle Chelonibia testudinaria

  • Sophie A. Doell
  • Rod M. Connolly
  • Colin J. Limpus
  • Ryan M. Pearson
  • Jason P. van de Merwe
SHORT NOTE

Abstract

Epibionts can serve as valuable ecological indicators, providing information about the behaviour or health of the host. The use of epibionts as indicators is, however, often limited by a lack of knowledge about the basic ecology of these ‘hitchhikers’. This study investigated the growth rates of a turtle barnacle, Chelonibia testudinaria, under natural conditions, and then used the resulting growth curve to estimate the barnacle’s age. Repeat morphometric measurements (length and basal area) on 78 barnacles were taken, as host loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) laid successive clutches at Mon Repos, Australia, during the 2015/16 nesting season. Barnacles when first encountered ranged in size from 3.7 to 62.9 mm, and were recaptured between 12 and 56 days later. Fitting the growth measurements of these barnacles to a von Bertalanffy growth curve, we estimated the age of these barnacles as a function of their size. Length growth rate decreased over time in a non-linear fashion, while basal area growth rate showed a linear relationship with age. The average estimated age of barnacles at first capture was approximately 6 months (barnacle length 30.3 ± 1.8 mm). The largest and oldest individual had a length of 62.9 mm when first measured, and was estimated to be 642 days old. The finding that C. testudinaria may live for up to 2 years, means that these barnacles may serve as interesting ecological indicators over this period. In turn, this information may be used to better understand the movement and habitat use of their sea turtle hosts, ultimately improving conservation and management of these threatened animals.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Duncan Limpus, Lucy Pople, and the Mon Repos rangers and volunteers for field assistance. Sarah Engelhard for assistance in the lab, and Ron West, Chris Henderson and Michael Arthur for assistance with statistical analysis.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declared that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All barnacles were collected from nesting loggerhead turtles following procedures approved by the Griffith University Animal Ethics Committee under permit ENV/06/15/AEC.

References

  1. Barnes H (1955) The growth rate of Balanus balanoides. Oikos 6:109–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bjorndal KA, Schroeder BA, Foley AM, Witherington BE, Bresette M, Clark D et al (2013) Temporal, spatial, and body size effects on growth rates of loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) in the northwest Atlantic. Mar Biol 160:2711–2721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bourget E, Crisp DJ (1975) An analysis of the growth bands and ridges of barnacle shell plates. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 55:439–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Caine EA (1986) Carapace epibionts of nesting loggerhead sea turtles: Atlantic coast of USA. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 95:15–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cheang CC, Tsang LM, Chu KH, Cheng I-J, Chan BKK (2013) Host-specific phenotypic plasticity of the turtle barnacle Chelonibia testudinaria: a widespread generalist rather than a specialist. PLoS One 8:e57592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Detjen M, Sterling E, Gómez A (2015) Stable isotopes in barnacles as a tool to understand green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) regional movement patterns. Biogeosciences 12:7081–7086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eckert KL, Eckert SA (1987) Growth rate and reproductive condition of the barnacle Conchoderma virgatum on gravid leatherback sea turtles in Caribbean waters. J Crust Biol 7:682–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ewers-Saucedo C, Arendt MD, Wares JP, Rittschof D (2015) Growth, mortality, and mating group size of an androdioecious barnacle: implications for the evolution of dwarf males. J Crust Biol 35:166–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Flint M, Patterson-Kane JC, Limpus CJ, Work TM, Blair D, Mills PC (2009) Postmortem diagnostic investigation of disease in free-ranging marine turtle populations: a review of common pathologic findings and protocols. J Vet Diagn Invest 21:733–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Frick MG, Ross A (2001) Will the real Chelonibia testudinaria please come forward: an appeal. MTN 94:16–17Google Scholar
  11. Frick MG, Williams KL, Robinson M (1998) Epibionts associated with nesting loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) in Georgia, USA. Herpetol Rev 29:211–214Google Scholar
  12. Frick MG, Williams KL, Veljacic DX, Jackson JA, Knight SE (2000) Epibiont community succession on nesting loggerhead sea turtles, Caretta caretta, from Georgia, USA. Science 64:185–188Google Scholar
  13. Hayashi R, Tsuji K (2008) Spatial distribution of turtle barnacles on the green sea turtle, Chelonia mydas. Ecol Res 23:121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Killingley JS, Lutcavage M (1983) Loggerhead turtle movements reconstructed from 18O and 13C profiles from commensal barnacle shells. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 16:345–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kitsos M-S, Christodoulou M, Arvanitidis C, Mavidis M, Kirmitzoglou I, Koukouras A (2005) Composition of the organismic assemblage associated with Caretta caretta. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 85:257–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Limpus CJ, Limpus DJ (2003) Loggerhead turtles in the equatorial and southern Pacific Ocean: a species in decline. In: Bolten AB, Witherington BE (eds) Loggerhead sea turtles. Smithsonian Books, Washington DC, pp 199–209Google Scholar
  17. Newman WA, Abbott DP (1980) Cirripedia: the barnacles. Intertidal invertebrates of California. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  18. Pfaller JB, Alfaro-Shigueto J, Balazs GH, Ishihara T, Kopitsky K, Mangel JC, Peckham SH, Bolten AB, Bjorndal KA (2014) Hitchhikers reveal cryptic host behavior: new insights from association between Planes major and sea turtles in the Pacific Ocean. Mar Biol 161:2167–2178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rasband WS (2015) ImageJ. U. S. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda. www.imagej.nih.gov/ij. Accessed 16 Oct 2015
  20. Robinson NJ, Lazo-Wasem EA, Paladino FV, Zardus JD, Pinou T (2017) Assortative epibiosis of leatherback, olive ridley and green sea turtles in the Eastern Tropical Pacific. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 97:1233–1240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sloan K, Zardus JD, Jones ML (2014) Substratum fidelity and early growth in Chelonibia testudinaria, a turtle barnacle especially common on debilitated loggerhead (Caretta caretta) sea turtles. Bull Mar Sci 90:581–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Trager GC, Hwang J-S, Strickler JR (1990) Barnacle suspension-feeding in variable flow. Mar Biol 105:117–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Vander Zanden HB, Bjorndal KA, Reich KJ, Bolten AB (2010) Individual specialists in a generalist population: results from a long-term stable isotope series. Biol Lett 6:711–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. von Bertalanffy L (1951) Metabolic types and growth types. Am Nat 85:111–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Zardus JD, Hadfield MG (2004) Larval development and complemental males in Chelonibia testudinaria, a barnacle commensal with sea turtles. J Crust Biol 24:409–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zardus JD, Lake DT, Frick MG, Rawson PD (2014) Deconstructing an assemblage of “turtle” barnacles: species assignments and fickle fidelity in Chelonibia. Mar Biol 161:45–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sophie A. Doell
    • 1
  • Rod M. Connolly
    • 1
  • Colin J. Limpus
    • 2
  • Ryan M. Pearson
    • 1
  • Jason P. van de Merwe
    • 1
  1. 1.Australian Rivers Institute-Coast and Estuaries, and School of EnvironmentGriffith UniversityGold CoastAustralia
  2. 2.Threatened Species UnitDepartment of Environment and Heritage ProtectionBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations