Advertisement

Marine Biology

, 165:131 | Cite as

Two-tiered defense strategy may compensate for predator avoidance costs of an ecosystem engineer

  • Avery E. Scherer
  • Christopher E. Bird
  • Melissa R. McCutcheon
  • Xinping Hu
  • Delbert L. Smee
Original paper

Abstract

Inducing defenses to deter predators is a necessary process theorized to incur costs. Although studies have investigated defense trade-offs, quantifying trade-offs is challenging and costs are often inferred. Additionally, prey employ strategies to reduce costs, making costs difficult to predict. Our purpose was to investigate induced defense costs by characterizing the defense mechanisms and costs in eastern oysters (Crassostrea virginica). In the field, newly-settled oysters exposed to blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) exudates grew stronger shells containing less percent organic material than oysters in controls. In natural populations, shell density was negatively correlated with shell thickness, further suggesting oysters thicken their shells by increasing low-density calcium carbonate. Reproductive investment showed an increasingly negative relationship with thickness as density decreased (and induction increased). In a laboratory experiment, oysters exposed to a temporal gradient in risk grew heavier shells in all crab treatments, but only grew stronger shells under constant exposure. Collectively, these results suggest oysters initially react to predators by adding inexpensive calcium carbonate to their shells to quickly outgrow risk. However, in high-risk environments, oysters may increase the production of costly organic material to increase the shell strength. Thus, oysters demonstrate a two-tier mechanism allowing them to cheaply escape predation at lower risk but to build stronger shells at greater expense when warranted. These results illuminate the complex strategies prey deploy to balance predation risk and defense costs as well as the importance of understanding these strategies to accurately predict predator effects.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank A. Draper and the Bird lab at TAMUCC for their help in data collection. Chris Mace and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department provided oysters. J. Lord provided guidance on ImageJ analysis of oyster shells. B.D. Sterba-Boatwright provided statistical guidance. Reviewers provided feedback which considerably improved the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by Texas Sea Grant [to AES] and the National Science Foundation-Math Science Partnership [ETEAMS Grant # 1321319].

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Data availability

Data for all portions of the study are available from the data library Pangaea (Scherer et al. 2018).

Ethical approval

All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.

Supplementary material

227_2018_3391_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (277 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 276 kb) Online Resource 1. Data for the study of the relationship between shell and soft tissue
227_2018_3391_MOESM2_ESM.jsl (9 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (JSL 9 kb) Online Resource 2. Analysis of the relationship between shell and gonad tissue, including the code for the interactive prediction profiler

References

  1. Amaral V, Cabral HN, Bishop MJ (2012) Effects of estuarine acidification on predator-prey interactions. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 445:117–127.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps09487 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Appleton RD, Palmer AR (1988) Water-borne stimuli released by predatory crabs and damaged prey induce more predator-resistant shells in a marine gastropod. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 85:4387–4391CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Avery R, Etter RJ (2006) Microstructural differences in the reinforcement of a gastropod shell against predation. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 323:159–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baldwin IT (1998) Jasmonate-induced responses are costly but benefit plants under attack in native populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:8113–8118CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Barton A, Hales B, Waldbusser GG, Langdon C, Feely RA (2012) The Pacific oyster, Crassostrea gigas, shows negative correlation to naturally elevated carbon dioxide levels: implications for near-term ocean acidification effects. Limnol Oceanogr 57:698–710.  https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.2012.57.3.0698 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barton A, Waldbusser GG, Feely RA, Weisberg SB, Newton JA, Hales B, Cudd S, Eudeline B, Langdon CJ, Jefferds I, King T, Suhrbier A, McLaughlin K (2015) Impacts of coastal acidification on the Pacific Northwest shellfish industry and adaptation startegies implemented in response. Oceanography 28:146–159.  https://doi.org/10.5670/oceanog.2015.38 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beck MW, Brumbaugh RD, Airoldi L, Carranza A, Coen LD, Crawford C, Defeo O, Edgar GJ, Hancock B, Kay MC, Lenihan HS, Luckenbach MW, Toropova CL, Zhang G, Guo X (2011) Oyster reefs at risk and recommendations for conservation, restoration, and management. Bioscience 61:107–116.  https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2011.61.2.5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bibby R, Cleall-Harding P, Rundle S, Widdicombe S, Spicer J (2007) Ocean acidification disrupts induced defences in the intertidal gastropod Littorina littorea. Biol Lett 3:699–701.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2007.0457 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Bourdeau PE (2009) Prioritized phenotypic responses to combined predators in a marine snail. Ecology 90:1659–1669CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Bourdeau PE (2010) An inducible morphological defence is a passive by-product of behaviour in a marine snail. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 277:455–462.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.1295 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carter JG (1980) Environmental and biological controls of bivalve shell mineralogy and microstructure. In: Rhoads DC, Lutz RA (eds) Skeletal growth of aquatic organisms. Plenum, New York, pp 69–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coleman DW, Byrne M, Davis AR (2014) Molluscs on acid: gastropod shell repair and strength in acidifying oceans. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 509:203–211.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps10887 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Covich AP, Crowl TA (1990) Predator-induced life-history shifts in a freshwater snail. Science 247(4945):949.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.247.4945.949 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Cronin G (2001) Resource allocation in seaweeds and marine invertebrates: chemical defense patterns in relation to defense theories. In: McClintock JB, Baker BJ (eds) Chemical ecology. CRC, Boca Raton, pp 325–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Currey JD, Taylor JD (1974) The mechanical behavior of some molluscan hard tissues. J Zool 173:395–406.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1974.tb04122.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Duong TM, McCauley SJ (2016) The effects of non-consumptive predation stress on immune response in a larval libellulid dragonfly. Ecology 27:1605–1610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ferrari MCO, Wisenden BD, Chivers DP (2010) Chemical ecology of predator–prey interactions in aquatic ecosystems: a review and prospectus. Can J Zool 88:698–724.  https://doi.org/10.1139/Z10-029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Frieder CA, Applebaum SL, Pan T-CF, Hedgecock D, Manahan DT (2016) Metabolic cost of calcification in bivalve larvae under experimental ocean acidification. J Mar Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkw1002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gaylord B, Hill TM, Sanford E, Lenz EA, Jacobs LA, Sato KN, Russell AD, Hettinger A (2011) Functional impacts of ocean acidification in an ecologically critical foundation species. J Exp Biol 214:2586–2594.  https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.055939 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Gazeau F, Quiblier C, Jansen JM, Gattuso J-P, Middelburg JJ, Heip CHR (2007) Impact of elevated CO2 on shellfish calcification. Geophys Res Lett 34:L07603.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL028554 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goulletquer P, Wolowicz M (1989) The shell of Cardium edule, Cardium glaucum and Ruditapes philippinarum: organic content, composition and energy value, as determined by different methods. J Mar Biol Assoc U K 69:563–572.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025315400030976 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grabowski JH, Peterson CH (2007) Restoring oyster reefs to recover ecosystem services. Theor Ecol Ser 4:281–298.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1875-306X(07)80017-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Harvell CD (1990) The ecology and evolution of inducible defenses. Q Rev Biol 65:323–340CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Hay ME (2009) Marine chemical ecology: chemical signals and cues structure marine populations, communities, and ecosystems. Ann Rev Mar Sci 1:193–212.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.marine.010908.163708 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnson KD, Smee DL (2012) Size matters for risk assessment and resource allocation in bivalves. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 462:103–110.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps09804 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kroeker KJ, Sanford E, Jellison BM, Gaylord B (2014) Predicting the effects of ocean acidification on predator-prey interactions: a conceptual framework based on coastal molluscs. Biol Bull 226:211–222.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.11.034 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Langerhans RB, Dewitt TJ (2002) Plasticity constrained: over-generalized induction cues cause maladaptive phenotypes. Evol Ecol Res 4:857–870Google Scholar
  28. Large SI, Smee DL (2013) Biogeographic variation in behavioral and morphological responses to predation risk. Oecologia 171:961–969.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-012-2450-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Large SI, Torres P, Smee DL (2012) Behavior and morphology of Nucella lapillus influenced by predator type and predator diet. Aquat Biol 16:189–196.  https://doi.org/10.3354/ab00452 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lee S-W, Jang Y-N, Ryu K-W, Chae S-C, Lee Y-H, Jeon C-W (2011) Mechanical characteristics and morphological effect of complex crossed structure in biomaterials: fracture mechanics and microstructure of chalky layer in oyster shell. Micron 42:60–70.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micron.2010.08.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Lee JW, Applebaum SL, Manahan DT (2016) Metabolic cost of protein synthesis in larvae of the Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas) is fixed across genotype, phenotype, and environmental temperature. Biol Bull 230:175–187CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Liu Z, Lee C, Aller RC (2008) Drying effects on decomposition of salt marsh sediment and on lysine sorption. J Mar Res 66:665–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lively CM (1986) Competition, comparative life histories, and maintenance of shell dimorphism in a barnacle. Ecology 67:858–864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lombardi SA, Chon GD, Lee JJ, Lane HA, Paynter KT (2013) Shell hardness and compressive strength of the eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica, and the Asian oyster, Crassostrea ariakensis. Biol Bull 225:175–183CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Lord JP, Whitlatch RB (2012) Inducible defenses in the eastern oyster Crassostrea virginica Gmelin in response to the presence of the predatory oyster drill Urosalpinx cinerea Say in Long Island Sound. Mar Biol 159:1177–1182.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-012-1896-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lord J, Whitlatch R (2014) Latitudinal patterns of shell thickness and metabolism in the eastern oyster Crassostrea virginica along the east coast of North America. Mar Biol 161:1487–1497.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-014-2434-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mackenzie CL, Ormondroyd GA, Curling SF, Ball RJ, Whiteley NM, Malham SK (2014) Ocean warming, more than acidification, reduces shell strength in a commercial shellfish species during food limitation. PLoS One 9:e86764.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0086764 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Melatunan S, Calosi P, Rundle SD, Widdicombe S, Moody AJ (2013) Effects of ocean acidification and elevated temperature on shell plasticity and its energetic basis in an intertidal gastropod. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 472:155–168.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps10046 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Newell RIE, Kennedy VS, Shaw KS (2007) Comparative vulnerability to predators, and induced defense responses, of eastern oysters Crassostrea virginica and non-native Crassostrea ariakensis oysters in Chesapeake Bay. Mar Biol 152:449–460.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-007-0706-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D, R Core Team (2016) nlme: Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1-137. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nlme. Accessed Feb 2017
  41. R Core Team (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/
  42. Relyea RA (2002) Costs of phenotypic plasticity. Am Nat 159:272–282.  https://doi.org/10.1086/338540 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Robinson EM, Lunt J, Marshall CD, Smee DL (2014) Eastern oysters Crassostrea virginica deter crab predators by altering their morphology in response to crab cues. Aquat Biol 20:111–118.  https://doi.org/10.3354/ab00549 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Scherer AE (2017) Characterization of an induced morphological defense in the eastern oyster Crassostrea virginica. Dissertation, Texas A&M Univeristy-Corpus Christi, Corpus ChristiGoogle Scholar
  45. Scherer AE, Smee DL (2017) Eastern oysters Crassostrea virginica produce plastic morphological defenses in response to crab predators despite resource limitation. Biol Bull 233:144–150.  https://doi.org/10.1086/695470 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Scherer AE, Lunt J, Draper AM, Smee DL (2016) Phenotypic plasticity in oysters (Crassostrea virginica) mediated by chemical signals from predators and injured prey. Invertebr Biol 135:97–107.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ivb.12120 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Scherer AE, Bird CE, McCutcheon MR, Hu X, Smee DL (2018) Shell (weight, density, thickness, crushing force, amino acid content) and soft tissue metrics (somatic tissue weight, gonad index) for eastern oysters Crassostrea virginica reared under variable predation conditions (S. Texas, 2013–14). PANGAEA. https://doi.pangaea.de/10.1594/PANGAEA.892092
  48. Schneider CA, Rasband WS, Eliceiri KW (2012) NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nat Methods 9:671–675.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2089 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. Taylor JD, Kennedy WJ (1969) The influence of the periostracum on the shell structure of bivalve molluscs. Calcif Tissue Res 3:274–283CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Tollrian R, Harvell CD (eds) (1999) the ecology and evolution of inducible defenses. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  51. Trussell GC, Nicklin MO (2002) Cue sensitivity, inducible defense, and trade-offs in a marine snail. Ecology 83:1635–1647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Van Buskirk J (2000) The costs of an inducible defense in anuran larvae. Ecology 81:2813–2821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Waldbusser GG, Hales B, Langdon CJ, Haley BA, Schrader P, Brunner EL, Gray MW, Miller CA, Gimenez I (2015) Saturation-state sensitivity of marine bivalve larvae to ocean acidification. Nat Clim Chang 5:273–280.  https://doi.org/10.1038/NCLIMATE2479 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zuschin M, Stanton RJ, Stanton RJ Jr (2001) Experimental measurement of shell strength and its taphonomic interpretation. Palaios 16:161–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Texas A&M University-Corpus ChristiCorpus ChristiUSA
  2. 2.University of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations