Oecologia

, Volume 169, Issue 4, pp 1095–1103 | Cite as

Multiple defender effects: synergistic coral defense by mutualist crustaceans

  • C. Seabird  McKeon
  • Adrian C. Stier
  • Shelby E. McIlroy
  • Benjamin M. Bolker
Community ecology - Original research

Abstract

The majority of our understanding of mutualisms comes from studies of pairwise interactions. However, many hosts support mutualist guilds, and interactions among mutualists make the prediction of aggregate effects difficult. Here, we apply a factorial experiment to interactions of ‘guard’ crustaceans that defend their coral host from seastar predators. Predation was reduced by the presence of mutualists (15% reduction in predation frequency and 45% in volume of coral consumed). The frequency of attacks with both mutualists was lower than with a single species, but it did not differ significantly from the expected frequency of independent effects. In contrast, the combined defensive efficacy of both mutualist species reduced the volume of coral tissue lost by 73%, significantly more than the 38% reduction expected from independent defensive efforts, suggesting the existence of a cooperative synergy in defensive behaviors of ‘guard’ crustaceans. These emergent ‘multiple defender effects’ are statistically and ecologically analogous to the emergent concept of ‘multiple predator effects’ known from the predation literature.

Keywords

Alpheus Coral reefs Exosymbiont Multiple predator effects Trapezia 

Supplementary material

442_2012_2275_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (298 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 297 kb)
442_2012_2275_MOESM2_ESM.rnw (18 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (RNW 18 kb)
442_2012_2275_MOESM3_ESM.rnw (23 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (RNW 23 kb)

References

  1. Baker AC, Starger CJ, McClanahan TR, Glynn PW (2004) Corals’ adaptive response to climate change. Nature 430:741PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Billick I, Case TJ (1994) Higher-order interactions in ecological communities—what are they and how can they be detected. Ecology 75:1529–1543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bolker BM (2008) Ecological models and data in R. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  4. Castro P (1978) Movements between coral colonies in Trapezia ferruginea (Crustacea Brachyura), an obligate symbiont of Scleractinian corals. Mar Biol 46:237–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Crawley MJ (2007) The R book. Wiley, West SussexCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Exlöv P (2000) Chemical cues from multiple predator-prey interactions induce changes in behavior and growth of anuran larvae. Oecologia 123:192–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fabricius KE, Mieog JC, Colin PL, Idip D, Van Oppen MJH (2004) Identity and diversity of coral endosymbionts (zooxanthellae) from three Palauan reefs with contrasting bleaching, temperature and shading histories. Mol Ecol 13:2445–2458PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gaines S, Roughgarden J (1985) Larval settlement rate—a leading determinant of structure in an ecological community of the marine intertidal zone. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 82:3707–3711PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Glynn PW (1976) Some physical and biological determinants of coral community structure in the Eastern Pacific. Ecol Monogr 46:431–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Glynn PW (1980) Defense by symbiotic Crustacea of host corals elicited by chemical cues from predator. Oecologia 47:287–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Glynn PW (1983) Increased survivorship in coral harboring crustacean symbionts. Mar Biol Lett 4:105–111Google Scholar
  12. Glynn PW (1987) Some ecological consequences of coral–Crustacean guard mutualisms in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. Symbiosis 4:301–324Google Scholar
  13. Glynn PW, Krupp DA (1986) Feeding biology of a Hawaiian sea star corallivore, Culcita novaeguineae Muller and Troschel. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 96:75–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Griffen BD (2006) Detecting emergent effects of multiple predator species. Oecologia 148:702–709PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Holland JN, Bronstein JL, DeAngelis DL (2004) Testing hypotheses for excess flower production and low fruit-to-flower ratios in a pollinating seed-consuming mutualism. Oikos 105:633–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Huber ME (1987) Aggressive behavior of Trapezia intermedia Miers and T. digitalis Latreille (Brachyura:Xanthidae). J Crustac Biol 7:238–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lassig BR (1977) Communication and coexistence in a coral community. Mar Biol 42:85–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Little AF, van Oppen MJH, Willis BL (2004) Flexibility in algal endosymbioses shapes growth in reef corals. Science 304:1492–1494PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mieog JC, Van Oppen MJH, Berkelmans R, Stam WT, Olsen JL (2009) Quantification of algal endosymbionts (Symbiodinium) in coral tissue using real-time PCR. Mol Ecol Resour 9:74–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Morris WF et al (2007) Direct and interactive effects of enemies and mutualists on plant performance: a meta-analysis. Ecology 88:1021–1029PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Muscatine L, Porter J (1977) Reef corals: mutualistic symbioses adapted to nutrient-poor environments. Bioscience 27:454–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Palmer TM, Brody AK (2007) Mutualism as reciprocal exploitation: ant guards defend foliar but not reproductive structures of an African ant-plant. Ecology 88:3004–3011PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Palmer TM, Stanton ML, Young TP (2003) Competition and coexistence: exploring mechanisms that restrict and maintain diversity within mutualist guilds. Am Nat 162:S63–S79PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Palmer TM, Stanton ML, Young TP, Goheen JR, Pringle RM, Karban R (2008) Breakdown of an ant–plant mutualism follows the loss of large herbivores from an African savanna. Science 319:192–195PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Palmer TM, Doak DF, Stanton ML, Bronstein JL, Kiers ET, Young TP, Goheen JR (2010) Synergy of multiple partners, including freeloaders, increases host fitness in a multispecies mutualism. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107:17234–17239Google Scholar
  26. Plummer M (2003) JAGS: a program for analysis of Bayesian graphical modeling using Gibbs sampling. In: Hornik K, Leisch F , Zeileis A (eds) Proc 3rd Int Workshop on Distributed Statistical Computing (DSC 2003). Achim Zeileis, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Pratchett M, Vytopil E (2000) Coral crabs influence the feeding patterns of crown-of-thorns starfish. Coral Reefs 19:36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pratchett MS, Trapon M, Berumen ML, Chong-Seng K (2011) Recent disturbances augment community shifts in coral assemblages in Moorea, French Polynesia. Coral Reefs 30:183–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Preston EM (1971) Niche overlap and competition among five sympatric congeneric species of xanthid crabs. PhD thesis. University of Hawaii, HonoluluGoogle Scholar
  31. R Development Core Team (2011) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  32. Resetarits WJJr, Chalcraft DR (2007) Functional diversity within a morphologically conservative genus of predators: implications for functional equivalence and redundancy in ecological communities. Funct Ecol 21:793–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Roughgarden J, Gaines S, Possingham H (1988) Recruitment dynamics in complex life-cycles. Science 241:1460–1466PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rowan R (1998) Diversity and ecology of zooxanthellae on coral reefs. J Phycol 34:407–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rowan R (2004) Coral bleaching—thermal adaptation in reef coral symbionts. Nature 430:742PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sih A, Englund G, Wooster D (1998) Emergent impacts of multiple predators on prey. Trends Ecol Evol 13:350–355PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Soluk DA, Collins NC (1988) Synergistic interactions between fish and stoneflies: facilitation and interference among stream predators. Oikos 52:94–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stachowicz JJ, Hay ME (1999) Mutualism and coral persistence: the role of herbivore resistance to algal chemical defense. Ecology 80:2085–2101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stachowicz JJ, Whitlatch RB (2005) Multiple mutualists provide complementary benefits to their seaweed host. Ecology 86:2418–2427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stewart HL, Holbrook SJ, Schmitt RJ, Brooks AJ (2006) Symbiotic crabs maintain coral health by clearing sediments. Coral Reefs 25:609–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stimson J (1990) Stimulation of fat-body production in the polyps of the coral Pocillopora damicornis by the presence of mutualistic crabs of the genus Trapezia. Mar Biol 106:211–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vance-Chalcraft HD, Rosenheim JA, Vonesh JR, Osenberg CW, Sih A (2007) The influence of intraguild predation on prey suppression and prey release: a meta-analysis. Ecology 88:2689–2696PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vannini M (1985) A shrimp that speaks crab-ese. J Crustac Biol 5:160–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vonesh JR, Osenberg CW (2003) Multi-predator effects across life-history stages: non-additivity of egg- and larval-stage predation in an African treefrog. Ecol Lett 6:503–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Warfe DM, Barmuta LA (2004) Habitat structural complexity mediates the foraging success of multiple predator species. Oecologia 141:171–178PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wooten JT (1994) Predicting direct and indirect effects: an integrated approach using experiments and path analysis. Ecology 75:151–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Seabird  McKeon
    • 1
  • Adrian C. Stier
    • 2
  • Shelby E. McIlroy
    • 3
  • Benjamin M. Bolker
    • 2
    • 4
  1. 1.Smithsonian Marine StationFort PierceUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  3. 3.Department of GeologyUniversity at BuffaloBuffaloUSA
  4. 4.Departments of Mathematics and Statistics and BiologyMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations