Advertisement

Potential of marbled crayfish Procambarus virginalis to supplant invasive Faxonius immunis

  • Md Shakhawate HossainEmail author
  • Wei Guo
  • Andreas Martens
  • Zdeněk Adámek
  • Antonín Kouba
  • Miloš Buřič
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Biological invasions are a growing threat to global biodiversity due to negative impacts on native biota and ecosystem functioning. Research has expanded from investigating native and alien species interactions to examining relationships among alien species. Invasive crayfish may have similar life histories, niche preferences, and adaptation strategies, but their mutual interactions are little understood. This study aimed to quantify interaction patterns of size-matched calico crayfish Faxonius immunis, established in the Rhine River catchment, and the parthenogenetic marbled crayfish Procambarus virginalis, currently spreading throughout Europe. During agonistic interactions in the absence of shelter, marbled crayfish won a significant majority of fights against calico crayfish, but in the presence of shelter there was no significant difference. When sex of calico crayfish was considered in the analysis without shelter, marbled crayfish won a significantly higher number of fights with female calico crayfish. In the absence of shelter, marbled crayfish dominated calico crayfish females in 83.3% and males in 60% of pairs. With available shelter, the dominance of marbled crayfish was 100% and 54.5% over female and male calico crayfish, respectively. The results suggested that sex and resource availability influence agonistic behaviour in the studied crayfish. Marbled crayfish are confirmed to be competitive against the calico crayfish, which has been shown to be dominant over another serious invader in the Rhine River catchment, the spiny-cheek crayfish Faxonius limosus. In natural sympatric populations, the situation may be affected by factors such as size, reproductive variables, water temperature, and predation pressure.

Keywords

Biological invasion Calico crayfish Competition Dominance Interaction Marbled crayfish 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the Czech Science Foundation (No. 19-04431S) and Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic—project CENAKVA (No. LM2018099). We also appreciate the language editing service of The Lucidus Consultancy, UK.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.

Supplementary material

10452_2019_9725_MOESM1_ESM.docx (12 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 11 kb)

References

  1. Andriantsoa R, Tönges S, Panteleit J, Theissinger K, Carneiro VC, Rasamy J, Lyko F (2019) Ecological plasticity and commercial impact of invasive marbled crayfish populations in Madagascar. BMC Ecol 19:1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12898-019-0224-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aquiloni L, Gherardi F (2008) Extended mother–offspring relationships in crayfish: the return behaviour of juvenile Procambarus clarkii. Ethology 114:946–954.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.2008.01547.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bergman DA, Kozlowski CP, McIntyre JC, Huber R, Daws AG, Moore PA (2003) Temporal dynamics and communication of winner-effects in the crayfish, Orconectes rusticus. Behaviour 140:805–825.  https://doi.org/10.1163/156853903322370689 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bovbjerg RV (1956) Some factors affecting aggressive behavior in crayfish. Physiol Zool 29:127–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Catford JA, Vesk PA, Richardson DM, Pyšek P (2012) Quantifying levels of biological invasion: towards the objective classification of invaded and invasible ecosystems. Blob Change Biol 18:44–62.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02549.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chapin FS et al (2000) Consequences of changing biodiversity. Nature 405:234.  https://doi.org/10.1038/35012241 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chucholl C (2012) Understanding invasion success: life-history traits and feeding habits of the alien crayfish Orconectes immunis (Decapoda, Astacida, Cambaridae). Knowl Manag Aquat Ecosyst 404:1–22.  https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2011082 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chucholl C, Dehus P (2011) Flusskrebse in Baden-Württemberg. Fischereiforschungsstelle Baden-Württemberg (FFS), LangenargenGoogle Scholar
  9. Chucholl C, Pfeiffer M (2010) First evidence for an established Marmorkrebs (Decapoda, Astacida, Cambaridae) population in Southwestern Germany, in syntopic occurrence with Orconectes limosus (Rafinesque, 1817). Aquat Invasions 5:405–412.  https://doi.org/10.3391/ai.2010.5.4.10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chucholl C, Stich HB, Maier G (2008) Aggressive interactions and competition for shelter between a recently introduced and an established invasive crayfish: Orconectes immunis vs. O. limosus. Fundam Appl Limnol 172:27–36.  https://doi.org/10.1127/1863-9135/2008/0172-0027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chucholl C, Morawetz K, Groß H (2012) The clones are coming–strong increase in Marmorkrebs [Procambarus fallax (Hagen, 1870) f. virginalis] records from Europe. Aquat Inavasions 7:511–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Church K, Iacarella JC, Ricciardi A (2017) Aggressive interactions between two invasive species: the round goby (Neogobius melanostomus) and the spinycheek crayfish (Orconectes limosus). Biol Invasions 19:425–441.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-016-1288-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dissanayake A, Galloway TS, Jones MB (2009) Physiological condition and intraspecific agonistic behaviour in Carcinus maenas (Crustacea: Decapoda). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 375:57–63.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2009.05.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Drake JM, Lodge DM (2004) Global hot spots of biological invasions: evaluating options for ballast–water management. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 271:575–580.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2003.2629 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Duckworth RA (2008) Adaptive dispersal strategies and the dynamics of a range expansion. Am Nat 172:4–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Early R et al (2016) Global threats from invasive alien species in the twenty-first century and national response capacities. Nat Commun 7:12485.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms12485 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Faulkes Z (2015) The global trade in crayfish as pets. Crustac Res 44:75–92.  https://doi.org/10.18353/crustacea.44.0_75 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Filipova L, Petrusek A, Matasova K, Delaunay C, Grandjean F (2013) Prevalence of the crayfish plague pathogen Aphanomyces astaci in populations of the signal crayfish Pacifastacus leniusculus in France: evaluating the threat to native crayfish. PLoS ONE 8:e70157.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0070157 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Fořt M, Hossain MS, Kouba A, Buřič M, Kozák P (2019) Agonistic interactions and dominance establishment in three crayfish species non-native to Europe. Limnologica 74:73–79.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.limno.2018.11.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gelmar C, Pätzold F, Grabow K, Martens A (2006) Der Kalikokrebs Orconectes immunis am nördlichen Oberrhein: ein neuer amerikanischer Flusskrebs breitet sich schnell in Mitteleuropa aus (Crustacea: Cambaridae). Lauterbornia 56:15–25Google Scholar
  21. Gherardi F (2002) Behavior. In: Holdich DM (ed) Biology of freshwater crayfish. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 258–290Google Scholar
  22. Guo W, Kubec J, Veselý L, Hossain MS, Buřič M, McClain R, Kouba A (2019) High air humidity is sufficient for successful egg incubation and early post-embryonic development in the marbled crayfish (Procambarus virginalis). Freshw Biol 64:1603–1612.  https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.13357 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hall CM (2010) Tourism and biodiversity: more significant than climate change? J Herit Tour 5:253–266.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1743873X.2010.517843 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Herrmann A, Schnabler A, Martens A (2018) Phenology of overland dispersal in the invasive crayfish Faxonius immunis (Hagen) at the Upper Rhine River area. Knowl Manag Aquat Ecosyst 419:1–6.  https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2018018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Holdich D, Haffner P, Noël P (2006) Species files. In: SoutyGrosset C, Holdich D, Noel PY, Reynolds JD, Haffner P (eds) Atlas of crayfish in Europe. Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris Patrimoines naturels, vol 64, pp 50–129Google Scholar
  26. Holdich D, Reynolds J, Souty-Grosset C, Sibley P (2009) A review of the ever increasing threat to European crayfish from non-indigenous crayfish species. Knowl Manag Aquat Ecosyst 11:394–395.  https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2009025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hossain MS, Patoka J, Kouba A, Buřič M (2018) Clonal crayfish as biological model: a review on marbled crayfish. Biologia 73:841–855.  https://doi.org/10.2478/s11756-018-0098-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hossain MS, Kouba A, Buřič M (2019a) Morphometry, size at maturity, and fecundity of marbled crayfish (Procambarus virginalis). Zoologischer Anzeiger 281:68–75.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcz.2019.06.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hossain MS, Kubec J, Kouba A, Kozák P, Buřič M (2019b) Still waters run deep: marbled crayfish dominates over red swamp crayfish in agonistic interactions. Aquat Ecol 53:97–107.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10452-019-09675-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hudina S, Hock K (2012) Behavioural determinants of agonistic success in invasive crayfish. Behav Process 91:77–81.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2012.05.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hudina S, Galić N, Roessink I, Hock K (2011) Competitive interactions between co-occurring invaders: identifying asymmetries between two invasive crayfish species. Biol Invasions 13:1791–1803.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-010-9933-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hudina S, Hock K, Žganec K (2014) The role of aggression in range expansion and biological invasions. Curr Zool 60:401–409.  https://doi.org/10.1093/czoolo/60.3.401 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hudina S, Hock K, Radović A, Klobučar G, Petković J, Jelić M, Maguire I (2016) Species-specific differences in dynamics of agonistic interactions may contribute to the competitive advantage of the invasive signal crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus) over the native narrow-clawed crayfish (Astacus leptodactylus). Mar Freshw Behav Physiol 49:147–157.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10236244.2016.1146448 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Huntingford FA (2013) Animal conflict. Chapman & Hall animal behaviour series. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  35. Jackson MC (2015) Interactions among multiple invasive animals. Ecology 96:2035–2041.  https://doi.org/10.1890/15-0171.1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Jimenez SA, Faulkes Z (2010) Establishment and care of a colony of parthenogenetic marbled crayfish, Marmorkrebs. Invertebr Rear 1:10–18Google Scholar
  37. Jimenez SA, Faulkes Z (2011) Can the parthenogenetic marbled crayfish Marmorkrebs compete with other crayfish species in fights? J Ethol 29:115–120.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10164-010-0232-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kawai T, Takahata M (eds) (2010) Biology of crayfish. Hokkaido University Press, Sapporo, JapanGoogle Scholar
  39. Kawai T, Faulkes Z, Scholtz G (2016) Freshwater crayfish: a global overview. CRC Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. Keller N, Pfeiffer M, Roessink I, Schulz R, Schrimpf A (2014) First evidence of crayfish plague agent in populations of the marbled crayfish (Procambarus fallax forma virginalis). Knowl Manag Aquat Ecosyst 414:8.  https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2014032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kouba A, Petrusek A, Kozák P (2014) Continental-wide distribution of crayfish species in Europe: update and maps. Knowl Manag Aquat Ecosyst 413:1–31.  https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2014007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kouba A et al (2016) The significance of droughts for hyporheic dwellers: evidence from freshwater crayfish. Sci Rep 6:e.26269.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep26569 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kubec J, Kouba A, Buric M (2018) Communication, behaviour, and decision making in crayfish: a review. Zoologischer Anzeiger.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcz.2018.10.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lidova J, Buric M, Kouba A, Velisek J (2019) Acute toxicity of two pyrethroid insecticides for five non-indigenous crayfish species in Europe. Veterinarni Medicina 64:125–133.  https://doi.org/10.17221/136/2018-VETMED CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lindqvist OV, Huner J (1999) Life history characteristics of crayfish: what makes some of them good colonizers? In: Gherardi F, Holdich DM (eds) Crayfish in Europe as alien species: How to make the best of the bad situation?. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 23–30Google Scholar
  46. Linzmaier SM, Goebel LS, Ruland F, Jeschke JM (2018) Behavioral differences in an over-invasion scenario: marbled vs. spiny-cheek crayfish. Ecosphere 9:e02385.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2385 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lipták B et al (2017) Slovak section of the Danube has its well-established breeding ground of marbled crayfish Procambarus fallax f. virginalis. Knowl Manag Aquat Ecosyst 418:1–5.  https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2017029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lipták B, Veselý L, Ercoli F, Bláha M, Buřič M, Ruokonen TJ, Kouba A (2019) Trophic role of marbled crayfish in a lentic freshwater ecosystem. Aquat Invasions.  https://doi.org/10.3391/ai.2019.14.2.09 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lodge DM (1993) Biological invasions: lessons for ecology. Trend Ecol Evol 8:133–137.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-5347(93)90025-K CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lodge DM et al (2012) Global introductions of crayfishes: evaluating the impact of species invasions on ecosystem services. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 43:449–472.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-111511-103919 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lukhaup C (2001) Procambarus sp.–Der Marmorkrebs. Aquaristik Aktuell 7–8:48–51Google Scholar
  52. Manfrin C, Souty-Grosset C, Anastácio P, Reynolds J, Giulianini P (2019) Detection and control of invasive freshwater crayfish: from traditional to innovative methods. Diversity 11:5.  https://doi.org/10.3390/d11010005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Manning A, Dawkins MS (2012) An introduction to animal behaviour, 5th edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Martin P, Dorn NJ, Kawai T, van der Heiden C, Scholtz G (2010) The enigmatic Marmorkrebs (marbled crayfish) is the parthenogenetic form of Procambarus fallax (Hagen, 1870). Contrib Zool 79:107–118.  https://doi.org/10.1163/18759866-07903003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Matsuzaki SIS, Usio N, Takamura N, Washitani I (2009) Contrasting impacts of invasive engineers on freshwater ecosystems: an experiment and meta-analysis. Oecologia 158:673–686.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-008-1180-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Momohara Y, Kanai A, Nagayama T (2013) Aminergic control of social status in crayfish agonistic encounters. PLoS ONE 8:e74489.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0074489 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  57. Momot WT (1995) Redefining the role of crayfish in aquatic ecosystems. Rev Fish Sci 3:33–63.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10641269509388566 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Nyström P (2002) Ecology. In: Holdich DM (ed) Biology of freshwater crayfish. Blackwell, London, pp 192–224Google Scholar
  59. Ondračková M, Kvach Y, Martens A, Jurajda P (2018) Limited parasite acquisition by non-native Lepomis gibbosus (Antinopterygii: Centrarchidae) at two ponds in the Upper Rhine basin, Germany. J Helminthol.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022149X18000469 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Parker GA (1974) Assessment strategy and the evolution of fighting behaviour. J Theor Biol 47:223–243.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(74)90111-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Patoka J, Magalhães ALB, Kouba A, Faulkes Z, Jerikho R, Vitule JRS (2018) Invasive aquatic pets: failed policies increase risks of harmful invasions. Biodiver Conserv 27:3037–3046.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-018-1581-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Pavey C, Fielder D (1996) The influence of size differential on agonistic behaviour in the freshwater crayfish, Cherax cuspidatus (Decapoda: Parastacidae). J Zool 238:445–457.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1996.tb05405.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Penk M, Saul WC, Dick JT, Donohue I, Alexander ME, Linzmaier S, Jeschke JM (2017) A trophic interaction framework for identifying the invasive capacity of novel organisms. Methods Ecol Evol 8:1786–1794.  https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12817 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Pimentel D et al (1992) Conserving biological diversity in agricultural/forestry systems. BioScience 42:354–362.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1311782 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Preisser EL, Elkinton JS (2008) Exploitative competition between invasive herbivores benefits a native host plant. Ecology 89:2671–2677.  https://doi.org/10.1890/08-0299.1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Putra MD et al (2018) Procambarus clarkii (Girard, 1852) and crayfish plague as new threats for biodiversity in Indonesia. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 28:1434–1440.  https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2970 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Reisinger LS, Elgin AK, Towle KM, Chan DJ, Lodge DM (2017) The influence of evolution and plasticity on the behavior of an invasive crayfish. Biol Invasions 19:815–830.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-016-1346-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Ricciardi A, Rasmussen JB (1999) Extinction rates of North American freshwater fauna. Conserv Biol 13:1220–1222.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1999.98380.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Roy H et al (2014) Invasive alien species–framework for the identification of invasive alien species of EU concern. European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  70. Russell JC, Sataruddin NS, Heard AD (2014) Over-invasion by functionally equivalent invasive species. Ecology 95:2268–2276.  https://doi.org/10.1890/13-1672.1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Savini D, Occhipinti-Ambrogi A, Marchini A, Tricarico E, Gherardi F, Olenin S, Gollasch S (2010) The top 27 animal alien species introduced into Europe for aquaculture and related activities. J Appl Icthyol 26:1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0426.2010.01503.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Seebens H et al (2017) No saturation in the accumulation of alien species worldwide. Nat Commun 8:14435.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14435 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  73. Sih A, Cote J, Evans M, Fogarty S, Pruitt J (2012) Ecological implications of behavioural syndromes. Ecol Lett 15:278–289.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01731.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Souty-Grosset C, Anastácio PM, Aquiloni L, Banha F, Choquer J, Chucholl C, Tricarico E (2016) The red swamp crayfish Procambarus clarkii in Europe: Impacts on aquatic ecosystems and human well-being. Limnol Ecol Manag Inland Waters 58:78–93.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.limno.2016.03.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Svoboda J, Mrugała A, Kozubíková-Balcarová E, Petrusek A (2017) Hosts and transmission of the crayfish plague pathogen Aphanomyces astaci: a review. J Fish Dis 40:127–140.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jfd.12472 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Szendőfi B et al (2018) Egzotikus halfajok és decapodák a Barát-és Dera-patakban, valamint a torkolatuk dunai élőhelyein = Occurrence of exotic fish and crayfish species in Barát and Dera creeks and their adjacent section of the River Danube. Pisces Hungarici. http://real.mtak.hu/id/eprint/90296
  77. Tittizer T, Schöll F, Banning M, Haybach A, Schleuter M (2000) Aquatic neozoan invertebrates in the inland water ways of the Federal Republic of Germany. Lauterbornia 39:1–72Google Scholar
  78. Trivers R (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell B (ed) Sexual selection and the descent of man. Aldine, Chicago, pp 136–179Google Scholar
  79. Twardochleb LA, Olden JD, Larson ER (2013) A global meta-analysis of the ecological impacts of nonnative crayfish. Freshw Sci 32:1367–1382.  https://doi.org/10.1899/12-203.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Uderbayev T, Patoka J, Beisembayev R, Petrtýl M, Bláha M, Kouba A (2017) Risk assessment of pet-traded decapod crustaceans in the Republic of Kazakhstan, the leading country in Central Asia. Knowl Manag Aquat Ecosyst.  https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2017018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Usio N, Konishi M, Nakano S (2001) Species displacement between an introduced and a ‘vulnerable’ crayfish: the role of aggressive interactions and shelter competition. Biol Invasions 3:179–185.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014573915464 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Van Kleunen M, Dawson W, Schlaepfer D, Jeschke JM, Fischer M (2010) Are invaders different? A conceptual framework of comparative approaches for assessing determinants of invasiveness. Ecol Lett 13:947–958.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01503.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. Vodovsky N, Patoka J, Kouba A (2017) Ecosystem of Caspian Sea threatened by pet-traded non-indigenous crayfish. Biol Invasions.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-017-1433-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Vogt G (2008) The marbled crayfish: a new model organism for research on development, epigenetics and evolutionary biology. J Zool 276:1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2008.00473.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Vogt G (2015) Stochastic developmental variation, an epigenetic source of phenotypic diversity with far-reaching biological consequences. J Biosci 40:159–204.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12038-015-9506-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. Vogt G, Tolley L, Scholtz G (2004) Life stages and reproductive components of the Marmorkrebs (marbled crayfish), the first parthenogenetic decapod crustacean. J Morphol 261:286–311.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jmor.10250 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. Wilson EO (2000) Sociobiology. 25th anniversary edition. Harvard University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Wofford SJ (2013) Sex and fighting: male and female crayfish utilize different assessment strategies during agonistic behavior. Bowling Green State University, Bowling GreenGoogle Scholar
  89. Wright TF, Eberhard J, Hobson E, Avery ML, Russello M (2010) Behavioral flexibility and species invasions: the adaptive flexibility hypothesis. Ethol Ecol Evol 22:393–404.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03949370.2010.505580 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Fisheries and Protection of Waters, South Bohemian Research Centre of Aquaculture and Biodiversity of HydrocenosesUniversity of South Bohemia in České BudějoviceVodňanyCzech Republic
  2. 2.Institute of BiologyPädagogische Hochschule KarlsruheKarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options