Coral Reefs

, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 461–469 | Cite as

Epibiotic mutualists alter coral susceptibility and response to biotic disturbance through cascading trait-mediated indirect interactions

Report

Abstract

Biotic disturbances are important drivers of community structure, but interactions among community members can determine trajectories of response and recovery. On coral reefs in French Polynesia, epibiotic amphipods induce the formation of branch-like “fingers” on flat colonies of encrusting Montipora coral. The fingers form as coral encrusts the amphipods’ tubes and lead to significant changes in colony morphology. I tested whether the induced morphological changes affect Montipora’s susceptibility to predation by pincushion (Culcita novaeguineae) and crown-of-thorns sea stars (Acanthaster planci). Montipora with fingers were less likely to be attacked and more likely to survive attack than colonies without fingers. Furthermore, the presence of fingers altered A. planci prey preference. Sea stars preferred Montipora without fingers over other common coral genera, but preferred other genera when Montipora had fingers. Amphipods indirectly affected Montipora’s resistance and resilience to predation, and the susceptibility of other coral genera to predation, through induced morphological changes. Such trait-mediated indirect interactions likely play an important role in determining how species respond to periodic sea star outbreaks.

Keywords

Trait-mediated indirect interaction (TMII) Disturbance Mutualism Coral morphology Acanthaster planci Montipora 

Supplementary material

338_2011_861_MOESM1_ESM.doc (32 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 32 kb)
338_2011_861_MOESM2_ESM.tif (11.1 mb)
Plate S1: (a) Amphipod-induced finger structures extend from an encrusting Montipora colony. Colonies with fingers exhibited morphologies resembling those of branching corals. (b) A colony of Acropora digitifera used in a feeding trial. Pairs of corals were presented to predators on cinder blocks, so that a sea star feeding on one coral in the pair could easily detect the other. The Acanthaster planci pictured is feeding on a Montipora sp. without fingers that had been paired with the A. digitifera. (c) The feeding scar left by a pin-cushion star (Culcita novaguineae) on a Montipora colony during a feeding trial. The C. novaguineae consumed plating coral along the colony’s edge, but stopped when it encountered finger structures (indicated by arrows). (d) Feeding scar left by a crown-of-thorns sea star (Acanthaster planci) on a Montipora sp. colony in the wild. The A. planci (bottom right) fed on encrusting Montipora until it encountered finger structures (top center) and a Porites sp. colony (top left), then retreated (TIFF 11413 kb)

References

  1. Abrams PA (1995) Implications of dynamically variable traits for identifying, classifying, and measuring direct and indirect effects in ecological communities. Am Nat 146:112–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abrams PA, Matsuda H (1996) Positive indirect effects between prey species that share predators. Ecology 77:610–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bergsma G (2009) Tube-dwelling coral symbionts induce significant morphological change in Montipora. Symbiosis 49:143–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bergsma G, Martinez C (2011) Mutualist-induced morphological changes enhance growth and survival of corals. Mar Biol. doi: 10.1007/s00227-011-1731-6
  5. Berumen ML, Pratchett MS (2006) Recovery without resilience: persistent disturbance and long-term shifts in the structure of fish and coral communities at Tiahura Reef, Moorea. Coral Reefs 25:647–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Callaway RM, Pennings SC, Richards CL (2003) Phenotypic plasticity and interactions among plants. Ecology 84:1115–1128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chesson J (1978) Measuring preference in selective predation. Ecology 59:211–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Colgan MW (1987) Coral reef recovery on Guam (Micronesia) after catastrophic predation by Acanthaster planci. Ecology 68:1592–1605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De’ath G, Moran PJ (1998) Factors affecting the behaviour of crown-of-thorns starfish (Acanthaster planci L.) on the Great Barrier Reef: 2: feeding preferences. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 220:107–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Devantier LM, Endean R (1988) The scallop Pedum spondyloideum mitigates the effects of Acanthaster planci predation on the host coral Porites: host defense facilitated by exaptation. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 47:293–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dill LM, Heithaus MR, Walters CJ (2003) Behaviorally mediated indirect interactions in marine communities and their conservation implications. Ecology 84:1151–1157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Faure G (1989) Degradation of coral reefs at Moorea Island (French Polynesia) by Acanthaster planci. J Coast Res 5:295–305Google Scholar
  13. Glynn PW (1987) Some ecological consequences of coral-crustacean guard mutualisms in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. Symbiosis 4:301–324Google Scholar
  14. Gochfeld DJ (2004) Predation-induced morphological and behavioral defenses in a hard coral: implications for foraging behavior of coral-feeding butterfly fishes. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 267:145–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hay ME (1986) Associational plant defenses and the maintenance of species diversity: turning competitors into accomplices. Am Nat 128:617–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Holt RD (1977) Predation, apparent competition, and structure of prey communities. Theor Popul Biol 12:197–229PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kayal M, Lenihan H, Pau C, Penin L, Adjeroud M (2011) Associational refuges among corals mediate impacts of a crown-of-thorns starfish Acanthaster planci outbreak. Coral Reefs. doi:10.1007/s00338-011-0763-1
  18. Keesing JK (1990) Feeding biology of the crown-of-thorns starfish, Acanthaster planci, (Linnaeus). James Cook University of North Queensland, Townsville, p 197Google Scholar
  19. Keesing JK (1992) Influence of persistent sub-infestation density Acanthaster planci (L.) and high density Echinometra mathaei (de Blainville) populations on coral reef community structure in Okinawa, Japan. Proceedings of the 7th international Coral Reef Symposium vol 2, pp 769–779Google Scholar
  20. Levenbach S (2008) Community-wide ramifications of an associational refuge on shallow rocky reefs. Ecology 89:2819–2828PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lima SL (1998) Stress and decision making under the risk of predation: recent developments from behavioral, reproductive, and ecological perspectives. Stress and Behavior 27:215–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Madin EMP, Gaines SD, Warner RR (2010) Field evidence for pervasive indirect effects of fishing on prey foraging behavior. Ecology 91:3563–3571PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Offenberg J, Macintosh DJ, Nielsen MG (2006) Indirect ant-protection against crab herbivory: damage-induced susceptibility to crab grazing may lead to its reduction on ant-colonized trees. Funct Ecol 20:52–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Peacor SD, Werner EE (2000) Predator effects on an assemblage of consumers through induced changes in consumer foraging behavior. Ecology 81:1998–2010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Porter JW (1972) Predation by Acanthaster and its effects on coral species diversity. Am Nat 106:487–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pratchett MS (2001) Influence of coral symbionts on feeding preferences of crown-of-thorns starfish Acanthaster planci in the western Pacific. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 214:111–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pratchett MS (2007) Feeding preferences of Acanthaster planci (Echinodermata : Asteroidea) under controlled conditions of food availability. Pac Sci 61:113–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Relyea RA (2001) Morphological and behavioral plasticity of larval anurans in response to different predators. Ecology 82:523–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Trussell GC, Ewanchuk PJ, Bertness MD (2003) Trait-mediated effects in rocky intertidal food chains: Predator risk cues alter prey feeding rates. Ecology 84:629–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Werner EE, Peacor SD (2003) A review of trait-mediated indirect interactions in ecological communities. Ecology 84:1083–1100CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine BiologyUniversity of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraUSA
  2. 2.Division of Science and Environmental PolicyCalifornia State University Monterey BaySeasideUSA

Personalised recommendations