Advertisement

Marine Biology

, 165:137 | Cite as

Costs of epibionts on Antarctic sea spiders

  • Steven J. Lane
  • Bret W. Tobalske
  • Amy L. Moran
  • Caitlin M. Shishido
  • H. Arthur Woods
Original paper

Abstract

Nearly all marine animals harbor epibionts, organisms living on their body surfaces. The positive or negative effects that epibionts have on their hosts depend on many factors, including the size and location of the epibionts on their host. The present study examined the effects of epibionts on gas exchange, locomotion, and drag of three species of Antarctic sea spiders (pycnogonids). Sea spiders are a cosmopolitan group of marine arthropods that lack gills and rely instead on the diffusion of oxygen directly across their cuticle. Encrusting epibionts, such as bryozoans and algae, had only minor effects on surface oxygen levels, but they reduced the functional diffusion coefficient of oxygen through the cuticle by about half. Although these effects are significant locally and may be severe in individuals with high coverage by epibionts, the total coverage on most individuals was not high enough to significantly alter oxygen fluxes into the animal. Macroepibionts, such as barnacles, had no effect on host walking speeds, but they increased by two-to-threefold the drag experienced by host sea spiders. This likely increases the energetic costs of walking and increases the chance of being dislodged by high currents. These results suggest that epibionts can impose diverse costs to their hosts but only in subtle ways that depend on total epibiont coverage of the host and rates of water flow.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the staff at McMurdo Station for technical support. Special thanks to Rob Robbins, Steve Rupp, and Timothy Dwyer for SCUBA support. In addition, we thank two anonymous reviewers for providing helpful comments on earlier drafts of the manuscript. Funding was provided by the National Science Foundation Grant PLR-1341485 to HAW and BWT and PLR-1341476 to ALM.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. All procedures performed in studies involving animals were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution or practice at which the studies were conducted.

Supplementary material

227_2018_3389_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (180 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 179 kb)

References

  1. Arnaud F, Bamber RN (1987) The biology of Pycnogonida. Adv Mar Biol 24:1–96Google Scholar
  2. Avolio C, Shine R, Pile AJ (2006) The adaptive significance of sexually dimorphic scale rugosity in sea snakes. Am Nat 167:728–738CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Botton ML (2009) The ecological importance of horseshoe crabs in estuarine and coastal horseshoe crabs in estuarine and coastal communities: a review and speculative summary. In: Tanacredi JT, Botton ML, Smith D (eds) Biology and conservation of horseshoe crabs. Springer, USA, pp 45–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burnett LE, Holman JD, Jorgensen DD, Ikerd JL, Burnett KG (2006) Immune defense reduces respiratory fitness in Callinectes sapidus, the Atlantic blue crab. Biol Bull 211:50–57CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Buschbaum C, Reise K (1999) Effects of barnacle epibionts on the periwinkle Littorina littorea (L.). Helgol Mar Res 53:56–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Christie AO, Dalley R (1987) Barnacle fouling and its prevention. In: Southward AJ (ed) Barnacle biology. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 419–433Google Scholar
  7. Core Team R (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna (Online) Google Scholar
  8. Davenport J, Blackstock N, Davies DA, Yarrington M (1987) Observations on the physiology and integumentary structure of the Antarctic pycnogonid Decolopoda australis. J Zool 211:451–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dejours P (1981) Principles of comparative respiratory physiology. Elsevier/North-Holland Biomedical Press, Amsterdam, p 265Google Scholar
  10. Denny MW (1993) Air and water: the biology and physics of life’s media. Princeton University Press, Princeton, p 341Google Scholar
  11. Eschweiler N, Buschbaum C (2011) Alien epibiont (Crassostrea gigas) impacts on native periwinkles (Littorina littorea). Aquat Inv 6(3):281–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gannon AT, Wheatly MG (1992) Physiological effects of an ectocommensal gill barnacle, Octolasmis muelleri, on gas exchange in the blue crab Callinectes sapidus. J Crustacean Biol 12:11–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Garner YL, Litvaitis MK (2017) Effects of artificial epibionts on byssogenesis, attachment strength, and movement in two size classes of the blue mussel, Mytilus edulis. Invertebr Biol 136(1):15–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gordon I (1932) Pycnogonida. Discov Rep 6:1–138Google Scholar
  15. Hedrick TL (2008) Software techniques for two- and three-dimensional kinematic measurements of biological and biomimetic systems. Bioinspir Biomim 3:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jackson BE, Evangelista DJ, Ray DD, Hedrick TL (2016) 3D for the people: multi-camera motion capture in the field with consumer-grade cameras and open source software. Biol Open 5:1334–1342CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Jeffries WB, Voris HK, Yang CM (1982) Diversity and distribution of the pedunculate barnacle Octolasmis in the seas adjacent to Singapore. J Crustacean Biol 2:562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Key MM Jr, Jeffries WB, Voris HK, Yang CM (1996) Epizoic bryozoans, horseshoe crabs, and other mobile benthic substrates. Bull Mar Sci 58:368–384Google Scholar
  19. Key MM Jr, Knauff JB, Barnes DKA (2013) Epizoic bryozoans on predatory pycnogonids from the South Orkney Islands, Antarctica: “If you can’t beat them, join them fouled pycnogonids from Antarctica”. In: Ernst A, Schäfer P, Scholz J (eds) Bryozoan studies 2010. Lecture notes in earth system sciences, vol 143. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 137–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. King PE (1973) Pycnogonids. Hutchinson, London, p 144Google Scholar
  21. Lane SJ, Shishido CM, Moran AL, Tobalske BW, Woods HA (2016) No effects and no control of epibionts in two species of temperate pycnogonids. Biol Bull 230:165–173CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Lane SJ, Shishido CM, Moran AL, Tobalske BW, Arango CP, Woods HA (2017) Upper limits to body size imposed by respiratory–structural trade-offs in Antarctic pycnogonids. Proc R Soc B 284:20171779CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Lane SJ, Moran AL, Shishido CM, Tobalske BW, Woods HA (2018) Cuticular gas exchange by Antarctic sea spiders. J Exp Biol 221:177568.  https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.177568 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lau WWY, Martinez MM (2003) Getting a grip on the intertidal: flow microhabitat and substratum type determine the dislodgement of the crab Pachygrapsus crassipes (Randall) on rocky shores and in estuaries. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 295:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Martinez MM (1996) Issues for aquatic pedestrian locomotion. Am Zool 36:619–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moran AL, Woods HA, Shishido CM, Lane SJ, Tobalske BW (2018) Predatory behavior of giant Antarctic sea spiders (Colossendeis) in nearshore environments. Invertebr Biol 137:116–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pipe AR (1982) Epizoites on marine invertebrates: with particular reference to those associated with the pycnogonid Phoxichilidium tubulariae Lebour, the amphipod Caprella linearis (L.) and the decapod Corystes cassivelaunus (Pennant). Chem Ecol 1:61–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Poulter R, Oliver PG, Hauton C, Sanders T, Ciotti BJ (2017) Infestation of shore crab gills by a free-living mussel species. Mar Biodiv 48:1241–1246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rasband WS (2014) ImageJ. US National Institutes of Health, Bethesda (Online) Google Scholar
  30. Scholnick DA, Burnett KG, Burnett LE (2006) Impact of exposure to bacteria on metabolism in the penaeid shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei. Biol Bull 211:44–49CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Seaborn T (2014) Limpets and their algal epibionts: costs and benefits of Acrosiphonia spp and Ulva lactuca growth. J Mar Biol 2014:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shine R, Brischoux F, Pile AJ (2010) A seasnake’s colour affects its susceptibility to algal fouling. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 277:2459–2464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Thomas F, Poulin R, de Meeüs T, Guégan JF, Renaud F (1999) Parasites and ecosystem engineering: what roles could they play? Oikos 84:167–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wahl M (1989) Marine epibiosis. I. Fouling and antifouling: some basic aspects. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 58:175–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wahl M (1996) Fouled snails in flow: potential of epibionts on Littorina littorea to increase drag and reduce snail growth rates. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 138:157–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wahl M (1997) Increased drag reduces growth of snails: comparison of flume and in situ experiments. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 151:291–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wahl M (2008) Ecological lever and interface ecology: epibiosis modulates the interactions between host and environment. Biofouling 24:427–438CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Wahl M, Lafargue F (1990) Marine epibiosis. II. Reduced fouling on Polysyncraton lacazei (Didemnidae, Tunicata) and proposal of an antifouling potential index. Oecologia 82:275–282CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Watling L, Thiel M (2013) Functional morphology and diversity, vol 1. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Whitley E, Ball J (2002) Statistics review 6: nonparametric methods. Crit Care 6:509–513CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Witman JD, Suchanek TH (1984) Mussels in flow: drag and dislodgement by epizoans. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 16:259–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Woods HA, Moran AL (2008) Oxygen profiles in egg masses predicted from a diffusion-reaction model. J Exp Biol 211:790–797.  https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.014613 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven J. Lane
    • 1
  • Bret W. Tobalske
    • 1
  • Amy L. Moran
    • 2
  • Caitlin M. Shishido
    • 2
  • H. Arthur Woods
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Biological SciencesUniversity of MontanaMissoulaUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyUniversity of Hawai’i at MānoaHonoluluUSA

Personalised recommendations