Polar Biology

, 29:978

The effects of temperature on walking and righting in temperate and Antarctic crustaceans

Original Paper

Abstract

Antarctic marine invertebrates live in a cold, thermally stable environment and cannot tolerate large changes in body temperature (i.e. they are stenothermal). Their temperate relatives, by contrast, are eurythermal, living in warmer and thermally more variable environments. Have these different environments influenced how specific behaviours are affected by changes of temperature? This question was addressed in two temperate crustaceans, the decapod Carcinus maenas and isopod Ligia oceanica, and two Antarctic crustaceans, the isopod Glyptonotus antarcticus and amphipod Paraceradocus gibber. The thermal dependence of walking speed was analysed by contrasting the slopes of the linear part of each species’ behavioural curve. Over the temperature ranges analysed, the temperature sensitivity of walking speed in the stenotherms was 13–23% that of the eurytherms when measured in body lengths s−1. There was a linear relationship between walking speed and temperature up to +4.5°C in the Antarctic species G. antarcticus and P. gibber. Elevating temperature by up to 3.5°C above the maximum temperature experienced in the Antarctic (+1°C), does not lead to an acute breakdown of motor coordination. We describe for the first time the righting behaviour of G. antarcticus. The mean time-to-right tended to a minimum on warming from −2 to+5°C, but this trend was not statistically significant. Our results suggest that the physiological adaptations which permit continued activity at low Antarctic temperatures have resulted in a lower thermal dependence of activity in Antarctic species, compared to related temperate species.

References

  1. Barlow CA, Kerr WD (1969) Locomotory responses to temperature in the grain weevil, Sitophilus granarius (L.) (Coleoptera: curculionidae). Can J Zool 47:217–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnes RSK, Hughes RN (1999) An introduction to behavioural ecology, 3rd Edn. Blackwell, Oxford, 286 ppGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennett AF (1990) Thermal dependence of locomotor capacity. Am J Physiol 259:253–258Google Scholar
  4. Clarke A (1988) Seasonality in the Antarctic environment. Comp Biochem Physiol B 90:461–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Coleman CO (1989) Burrowing, grooming and feeding-behaviour of Paraceradocus, an Antarctic amphipod genus (Crustacea). Polar Biol 10:43–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davenport JA (1997) Comparisons of the biology of the intertidal subantarctic limpets Nacella concinna and Kerguelenella lateralis. J Moll Stud 63:39–48Google Scholar
  7. Frederich M, Sartoris FJ, Arntz WE, Pörtner H-O (2000) Haemolymph Mg2+ regulation in decapod crustaceans: physiological correlates and ecological consequences in polar areas. J Exp Biol 203:1383–1393PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Frederich M, Sartoris FJ, Pörtner H-O (2001) Distribution patterns of decapod crustaceans in polar areas: a result of magnesium regulation? Polar Biol 24:719–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gentile G, Argano R (2005) Island biogeography of the Mediterranean sea: the species-area relationship for terrestrial isopods. J Bio geog 32:1715–1726Google Scholar
  10. Hewitt CG (1907) Ligia. XIV. In: Herdman WA (ed) Liverpool Marine Biology Committee. L.M.B.C. memoirs on typical British marine plants and animals. Williams and Norgate, London, 37 ppGoogle Scholar
  11. Kivivuori L (1980) Effects of temperature and temperate acclimation on the motor and neural functions in the crayfish Astacus astacus L. Comp Biochem Physiol 65A:297–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lagerspetz KYH, Tiiska A (1996) Why are some substances more toxic for Dapnia magna at low temperatures? Why magnesium? In: adaptations to stress in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, European Society for Comparative Physiology and Biochemistry, 17th annual conference, Abstracts, p 185Google Scholar
  13. Lindström M, Fortelius W (2001) Swimming behaviour in Monoporeia affinis (Crustacea: Amphipoda)—dependence on temperature and population density. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 256:73–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McKenzie JD, Colow P, Clyde J, Miles A, Dickinson R, Lieb WR, Franks NP (1992) Effects of temperature on the anaesthetic potency of halothane, enflurane and ethanol in Daphnia magna (Cladocera: Crustacea). Comp Biochem Physiol 101C:15–19Google Scholar
  15. McLeese DW, Wilder DG (1958) The activity and catchability of the lobster (Homarus americanus) in relation to temperature. J Fish Res Bd Can 15:1345–1354Google Scholar
  16. Mellanby K (1939) Low temperature and insect activity. Proc R Soc Lond B 127:473–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pantin CFA (1946) Notes on microscopical techniques for zoologists. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 75 ppGoogle Scholar
  18. Pörtner H-O (2002) Climate variations and the physiological basis of temperature dependent biogeography: systemic to molecular hierarchy of thermal tolerance in animals. Comp Biochem Physiol A 132:739–761Google Scholar
  19. Prosser CL (1958) General summary: the nature of physiological adaptation. In: Prosser CL (ed) Physiological adaptation. Society of General Physiologists, American Physiology Society, Washington, pp 167–180Google Scholar
  20. Ropes JW (1968) The feeding habits of the green crab, Carcinus maenas (L.). Fish Bull Wildl Serv US 67:183–203Google Scholar
  21. Schram FR (1986) Crustacea. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 606 ppGoogle Scholar
  22. Somero GN, DeVries AL (1967) Temperature tolerance of some Antarctic fishes. Science 156:257–258PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Somero GN, Dahlhoff E, Lin JJ (1996) Stenotherms and eurytherms: mechanisms establishing thermal optima and tolerance ranges. In: Johnston IA, Bennett AF (eds) Animals and temperature: phenotypic and evolutionary adaptation. Society for Experimental Biology Seminar Series 59. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 435Google Scholar
  24. Spicer JI, Morritt D, Taylor AC (1994). Effect of low temperature on oxygen uptake and haemolymph ions in the sandhopper Talitrus saltator (Crustacea: Amphipoda). J Mar Biol Ass UK 74:313–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Symons PEK (1964) Behavioural responses of the crab Hemigrapsus oregonensis to temperature, diurnal light variation, and food stimuli. Ecology 45:580–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Thatje S, Arntz WE (2004) Antarctic reptant decapods: more than a myth? Polar Biol 27:195–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Thatje S, Schnack-Schiel S, Arntz WE (2003) Developmental trade-offs in Subantarctic meroplankton communities and the enigma of low decapod diversity in high southern latitudes. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 260:195–207Google Scholar
  28. Thatje S, Anger K, Calcagno JA, Lovrich GA, Pörtner HO, Arntz WE (2005) Challenging the cold: crabs reconquer the Antarctic. Ecology 86:619–625Google Scholar
  29. Wägele JW (1991) Antarctic isopoda Valvifera. In: Wägele JW, Sieg J (eds) Synopses of the Antarctic benthos, vol 2. Koeltz Scientific Books, Koenigstein, 213 ppGoogle Scholar
  30. Wells RM (1979) The lethal temperatures of Antarctic marine invertebrates. N Z Ant Rec 1:9–13Google Scholar
  31. Willows RI (1987) Population and individual energetics of Ligia oceanica (L.) (Crustacea: Isopoda) in the rocky supralittoral. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 105:253–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wilson RS, Franklin CE, Davison W, Kraft P (2001) Stenotherms at sub-zero temperatures: thermal dependence of swimming performance in Antarctic fish. J Comp Physiol B 171:263–169PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • John S. Young
    • 1
    • 3
  • Lloyd S. Peck
    • 2
  • Thomas Matheson
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  2. 2.British Antarctic SurveyCambridgeUK
  3. 3.Department of PharmacologyUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  4. 4.Department of BiologyUniversity of LeicesterLeicesterUK

Personalised recommendations