Biological Invasions

, Volume 13, Issue 6, pp 1409–1421 | Cite as

Interspecific differences in drift behaviour between the native Gammarus pulex and the exotic Gammarus roeseli and possible implications for the invader’s success

  • Clément Lagrue
  • Nicolas Kaldonski
  • Sébastien Motreuil
  • Thierry Lefèvre
  • Olivier Blatter
  • Philippe Giraud
  • Loïc Bollache
Original Paper
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

“Drifting” is known to subject aquatic invertebrates to intense predation by drift feeding fish. Consequently, interspecific variations in drifting behaviour could lead to differences in predation pressure between coexisting prey species. Predation being an important factor determining the success of invaders, differences in drift patterns could advantage either native or exotic invertebrates through differential predation by native fish predators. The exotic freshwater amphipod (Gammarus roeseli) has now largely colonized Western Europe where it is often found in sympatry with a native species (Gammarus pulex). Here we documented interspecific differences in drifting behaviour that might have favored the invader’s success through differential predation. Benthic and drifting amphipods were sampled three times at the same site to compare the proportion of each species within and between sample types (benthos or drift) across time. Compared with the benthos, where the invader (G. roeseli) was significantly less abundant than the native (G. pulex), G. roeseli was proportionally overrepresented in the drift but displayed a very different drifting pattern. While G. pulex drift rates remained roughly constant over a 24 h period, G. roeseli showed a marked diel periodicity with low diurnal and high nocturnal drift rates. Such drifting behaviour could procure this species with a competitive advantage regarding predation as most drift feeding fish are diurnal. As a result, the native appears more disadvantaged with respect to drift. This may partly explain the ability of G. roeseli to coexist with G. pulex in a habitat more suitable to the native.

Keywords

Invertebrate drift Gammarus pulex Gammarus roeseli Biological invasion 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by a grant from the Conseil Régional de Bourgogne. We thank Robert Poulin and other members of the Parasitology Research Group (University of Otago) for their help and comments on a previous version of the manuscript.

References

  1. Andersen TH, Hansen HO, Iversen TM, Jacobsen D, Krojgaard L, Poulsen N (1992) Growth and feeding of 0+ brown trout (Salmo trutta) introduced to 2 small Danish streams. Arch Hydrobiol 125:339–346Google Scholar
  2. Andersson KG, Brönmark C, Herrmann J, Malmquist B, Otto C, Sjörström P (1986) Presence of sculpins (Cottus gobio) reduces drift and activity of Gammarus pulex (Amphipoda). Hydrobiologia 133:209–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bakker TCM, Mazzi D, Zala S (1997) Parasite-induced changes in behaviour and colour make Gammarus pulex more prone to fish predation. Ecology 78:1098–1104Google Scholar
  4. Bauer A, Trouvé S, Grégoire A, Bollache L, Cézilly F (2000) Differential influence of Pomphorhynchus laevis (Acanthocephala) on the behaviour of native and invader gammarid species. Int J Parasitol 30:1453–1457PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bethel WM, Holmes JC (1973) Altered evasive behaviour and responses to light in amphipods harbouring acanthocephalan cystacanths. J Parasitol 59:945–956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bollache L, Gambade G, Cézilly F (2000) The influence of micro-habitat segregation on size-assortative pairing in Gammarus pulex (L.) (Crustacea: Amphipoda). Arch Hydrobiol 147:547–558Google Scholar
  7. Bollache L, Devin S, Wattier R, Chovet M, Beisel JN, Moreteau JC, Rigaud T (2004) Rapid range extension of the Ponto-Caspian amphipod Dikerogammarus villosus in France: potential consequences. Arch Hydrobiol 160:57–66. doi: 10.1127/0003-9136/2004/0160-0057 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bollache L, Kaldonski N, Troussard JP, Lagrue C, Rigaud T (2006) Spines and behaviour as defences against fish predators in an invasive freshwater amphipod. Anim Behav 72:627–633. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2005.11.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bollache L, Dick JTA, Farnsworth KD, Montgomery WI (2008) Comparison of the functional responses of invasive and native amphipods. Biol Lett 4:166–169. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2007.0554 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cornell HV, Lawton JH (1992) Species interactions, local and regional processes, and limits to the richness of ecological communities—a theoretical perspective. J Anim Ecol 61:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dahl J (1998) Effects of a benthivorous and a drift-feeding fish on a benthic stream assemblage. Oecologia 116:426–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dahl J, Greenberg L (1996) Effects of habitat structure on habitat use by Gammarus pulex in artificial streams. Fresh Biol 36:487–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dick JTA (1992) The nature and implications of differential predation between Gammarus pulex and G. duebeni celticus (Crustacea: Amphipoda). J Zool 227:171–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dick JTA (1996) Post-invasion amphipod communities of Lough Neagh, Northern Ireland: influences of habitat selection and mutual predation. J Anim Ecol 65:756–767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dick JTA, Elwood RW (1992) Coexistence and exclusion among Gammarus species: behavioural avoidance of interspecific precopulation by male G. pulex (Amphipoda). Oikos 64:541–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dick JTA, Platvoet D (1996) Intraguild predation and species exclusions in amphipods: the interaction of behaviour, physiology and environment. Fresh Biol 36:375–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dick JTA, Platvoet D (2000) Invading predatory crustacean Dikerogammarus villosus eliminates both native and exotic species. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:977–983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dick JTA, Irvine DE, Elwood RW (1990) Differential predation by males on moulted females may explain the competitive displacement of Gammarus duebeni by G. pulex (Amphipoda). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 26:41–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dick JTA, Montgomery WI, Elwood RW (1993) Replacement of the indigenous amphipod Gammarus duebeni celticus by the introduced G. pulex: differential cannibalism and mutual predation. J Anim Ecol 62:79–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dick JTA, Elwood RW, Montgomery WI (1995) The behavioural basis of a species replacement: differential aggression and predation between the introduced Gammarus pulex and the native G. duebeni celticus (Amphipoda). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 37:393–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dimond JB (1967) Evidence that drift of stream benthos is density related. Ecology 48:855–857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Elliott JM (1970) Diel changes in invertebrate drift and the food of trout Salmo trutta L. J Fish Biol 2:161–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Elliott JM (2002a) A continuous study of the total drift of freshwater shrimps, Gammarus pulex, in a small stony stream in the English Lake District. Fresh Biol 47:75–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Elliott JM (2002b) Time spent in the drift by downstream-dispersing invertebrates in a Lake District stream. Fresh Biol 47:97–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Elliott JM (2002c) The drift distances and time spent in the drift by freshwater shrimps, Gammarus pulex, in a small stony stream, and their implications for the interpretation of downstream dispersal. Fresh Biol 47:1403–1417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Elliott JM (2003) A comparative study of the dispersal of 10 species of stream invertebrates. Fresh Biol 48:1652–1668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Elliott JM (2005) Day-night changes in the spatial distribution and habitat preferences of freshwater shrimps, Gammarus pulex, in a stony stream. Fresh Biol 50:552–566. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2005.01345 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Foeckler F, Schrimpff E (1985) Gammarids in streams of Northeastern Bavaria, F.R.G.II. The different hydrochemical habitats of Gammarus fossarum Koch, 1835 and Gammarus roeseli Gervais, 1835. Arch Hydrobiol 104:269–286Google Scholar
  29. Giroux F, Ovidio M, Philippart JC, Baras E (2000) Relationship between the drift of macroinvertebrates and the activity of brown trout in a small stream. J Fish Biol 56:1248–1257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Henry KS, Danielopol DL (1999) Oxygen dependent habitat selection in surface and hyporheic environments by Gammarus roeseli Gervais (Crustacea: Amphipoda): experimental evidence. Hydrobiologia 390:51–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hieber M, Robinson CT, Uehlinger U (2003) Seasonal and diel patterns of invertebrate drift in different alpine stream types. Fresh Biol 48:1078–1092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Holt CS, Waters TF (1967) Effect of light intensity on drift of stream invertebrates. Ecology 48:225–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hughes DA (1970) Some factors affecting drift and upstream movements of Gammarus pulex. Ecology 51:301–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Humphries S, Ruxton GD (2003) Estimation of intergenerational drift dispersal distances and mortality risk for aquatic macroinvertebrates. Limnol Oceanogr 48:2117–2124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Janetzky W (1994) Ditribution of the genus Gammarus (Amphipoda: Gammaridae) in the River Hunte and its tributaries (Lower Saxony, northern Germany). Hydrobiologia 294:23–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jazdzewski K, Roux AL (1988) Biogéographie de Gammarus roeseli Gervais en Europe, en particulier répartition en France et en Pologne. Crustaceana 13:272–277Google Scholar
  37. Jazdzewski K, Konopacka A, Grabowski M (2004) Recent drastic changes in the gammarid fauna (Crustacea, Amphipoda) of the Vistula River deltaic system in Poland caused by alien invaders. Divers Distrib 10:81–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jenkins TM, Feldmuth CR, Elliott GV (1970) Feeding of rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) in relation to abundance of drifting organisms in a mountain stream. J Fish Res Board Can 27:2356–2361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kaldonski N, Perrot-Minnot MJ, Cézilly F (2007) Differential influence of two acanthocephalan parasites on the anti-predator behaviour of their intermediate host. Anim Behav 74:1311–1317. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.02.027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kaldonski N, Lagrue C, Motreuil S, Rigaud T, Bollache L (2008) Habitat segregation mediates predation by the benthic fish Cottus gobio on the exotic amphipod species Gammarus roeseli. Naturwissenschaften 9:839–844. doi: 10.1007/s00114-008-0392-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Karaman GS, Pinkster S (1977) Freshwater Gammarus species from Europe, North Africa and adjacent regions of Asia (Crustacea–Amphipoda). Bijdr Dierkd 47:1–97Google Scholar
  42. Kestrup AM, Ricciardi A (2009) Environmental heterogeneity limits the local dominance of an invasive freshwater crustacean. Biol Invasions 11:2095–2105. doi: 10.1007/s10530-009-9490-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kinzler W, Maier G (2003) Asymmetry in mutual predation: possible reason for the replacement of native gammarids by invasives. Arch Hydrobiol 157:473–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lagrue C, Kaldonski N, Perrot-Minnot MJ, Bollache L (2007) Modification of hosts’ behaviour by a parasite: field evidence for adaptive manipulation. Ecology 88:2839–2847PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lodge DM (1983) Biological invasions: lessons for ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 3:133–137Google Scholar
  46. MacNeil C, Platvoet D (2005) The predatory impact of the freshwater invader Dikerogammarus villosus on native Gammarus pulex (Crustacea: Amphipoda); influences of differential microdistribution and food resources. J Zool 267:31–38. doi: 10.1017/S0952836905007351 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. MacNeil C, Prenter J (2000) Differential microdistributions and interspecific interactions in coexisting native and introduced Gammarus spp. (Crustacea: Amphipoda). J Zool 251:377–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. MacNeil C, Dick JTA, Elwood RW (1997) The trophic ecology of freshwater Gammarus (Crustacea: Amphipoda); problems and perspectives concerning the functional feeding group concept. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 72:349–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. MacNeil C, Dick JTA, Elwood RW (1999) The dynamics of predation on Gammarus spp. (Crustacea: Amphipoda). Biol Rev 74:375–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. MacNeil C, Elwood RW, Dick JTA (2000) Factors influencing the importance of Gammarus spp. (Crustacea: Amphipoda) in riverine salmonid diets. Arch Hydrobiol 149:87–107Google Scholar
  51. MacNeil C, Montgomery WI, Dick JTA, Elwood RW (2001) Factors influencing the distribution of native and introduced Gammarus spp. in Irish river systems. Arch Hydrobiol 151:353–368Google Scholar
  52. MacNeil C, Bigsby E, Dick JTA, Hatcher MJ, Dunn AM (2003a) Differential physico-chemical tolerances and intraguild predation among native and invasive amphipods (Crustacea); a field study. Arch Hydrobiol 156:165–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. MacNeil C, Dick JTA, Hatcher MJ, Dunn AM (2003b) Differential drift and parasitism in invading and native Gammarus spp. (Crustacea: Amphipoda). Ecography 26:467–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. MacNeil C, Dick JTA, Hatcher MJ, Terry RS, Smith JE, Dunn AM (2003c) Parasite-mediated predation between native and invasive amphipods. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:1309–1314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. McCahon CP, Maund SJ, Poulton MJ (1991) The effect of the acanthocephalan parasite (Pomphorhynchus laevis) on the drift of its intermediate host (Gammarus pulex). Fresh Biol 25:507–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. McGrath KE, Peeters ETHM, Beijer JAJ, Scheffer M (2007) Habitat-mediated cannibalism and microhabitat restriction in the stream invertebrate Gammarus pulex. Hydrobiologia 589:155–164. doi: 10.1007/s10750-007-0731-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Meijering MPD (1972) Experimental studies on drift and upstream movements of Gammarids in running waters. Arch Hydrobiol 70:133–205Google Scholar
  58. Meijering MPD (1991) Lack of oxygen and low pH as limiting factors for Gammarus in Hessian brooks and rivers. Hydrobiologia 223:159–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Müller K (1974) Stream drift as a chronobiological phenomenon in running water ecosystems. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 5:309–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Noordhuis R, van Schie J, Jaarsma N (2009) Colonization patterns and impacts of the invasive amphipods Chelicorophium curvispinum and Dikerogammarus villosus in the IJsselmeer area, The Netherlands. Biol Invasions 11:2067–2084. doi: 10.1007/s10530-009-9487-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Otto C (1998) Factors affecting the disjunct distribution of amphipods along a North Swedish river. Oikos 83:21–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Pinkster S, Scheepmaker M, Platvoet D, Broodbakker N (1992) Drastic changes in the amphipod fauna (Crustacea) of Dutch inland waters during the last 25 years. Bijdr Dierkd 61:193–204Google Scholar
  63. Piscart C, Dick JTA, McCrisken D, MacNeil C (2009) Environmental mediation of intraguild predation between the freshwater invader Gammarus pulex and the native G. duebeni celticus. Biol Invasions 11:2141–2145. doi: 10.1007/s10530-009-9497-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Platvoet D, Dick JTA, MacNeil C, van Riel MC, van der Velde G (2009) Invader-invader interactions in relation to environmental heterogeneity leads to zonation of two amphipods, Dikerogammarus villosus (Sowinsky) and Gammarus tigrinus Sexton: amphipod pilot species project (AMPIS) report 6. Biol Invasions 11:2085–2093. doi: 10.1007/s10530-009-9488-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Pöckl M (2009) Success of the invasive Ponto-Caspian amphipod Dikerogammarus villosus by life history traits and reproductive capacity. Biol Invasions 11:2021–2041. doi: 10.1007/s10530-009-9485-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pöckl M, Webb BW, Sutcliffe DW (2003) Life history and reproductive capacity of Gammarus fossarum and G. roeseli (Crustacea: Amphipoda) under naturally fluctuating water temperatures: a simulation study. Fresh Biol 48:53–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Polis GA, Myers CA, Holt RD (1989) The ecology and evolution of intraguild predation: potential competitors that eat each other. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 20:297–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Statzner B, Bittner A (1983) Nature and causes of migrations of Gammarus fossarum Koch (Amphipoda)—A filed study using a light intensifier for the detection of nocturnal activities. Crustaceana 44:271–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tain L, Perrot-Minnot MJ, Cézilly F (2006) Altered host behaviour and brain serotonergic activity caused by acanthocephalans: evidence for specificity. Proc R Soc Lond B 273:3039–3045. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2006.3618 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Toman MJ, Dall PC (1998) Respiratory levels and adaptations in four freshwater species of Gammarus (Crustacea: Amphipoda). Int Rev Hydrobiol 83:251–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. van der Velde G, Leuven RESW, Platvoet D, Bacela K, Huijbregts MAJ, Hendriks HWM, Kruijt D (2009) Environmental and morphological factors influencing predatory behaviour by invasive non-indigenous gammaridean species. Biol Invasions 11:2043–2054. doi: 10.1007/s10530-009-9500-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. van Riel MC, Healy EP, van der Velde G, bij de Vaate A (2007) Interference competition among native and invader amphipods. Acta Oecologica 31:282–289. doi: 10.1016/j.actao.2006.12.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. van Riel MC, ven der Velde G, bij de Vaate A (2009) Interference competition between alien invasive gammaridean species. Biol Invasions 11:2119–2132. doi: 10.1007/s10530-009-9486-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Ward PI (1986) A comparative field study of the breeding behaviour of a stream and a pond population of Gammarus pulex (Amphipoda). Oikos 46:29–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Waters TF (1961) Standing crop and drift of stream bottom organisms. Ecology 42:532–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Waters TF (1962) Diurnal periodicity in the drift of stream invertebrates. Ecology 43:316–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Waters TF (1965) Interpretation of invertebrate drift in streams. Ecology 46:327–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Waters TF (1966) Production rate, population density, and drift of a stream invertebrate. Ecology 47:595–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Wijnhoven S, van Riel MC, van der Velde G (2003) Exotic and indigenous freshwater gammarid species: physiological tolerance to water temperature in relation to ionic content of the water. Aquat Ecol 37:151–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Wooster D, Sih A (1995) A review of the drift and activity responses of stream prey to predator presence. Oikos 73:3–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Clément Lagrue
    • 1
  • Nicolas Kaldonski
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sébastien Motreuil
    • 1
  • Thierry Lefèvre
    • 1
    • 3
  • Olivier Blatter
    • 1
  • Philippe Giraud
    • 1
  • Loïc Bollache
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratoire Biogéosciences, UMR CNRS 5561 Biogéosciences, Equipe Ecologie EvolutiveUniversité de BourgogneDijonFrance
  2. 2.Equipe Ecologie des Eaux ContinentalesUMR CNRS 6116 IMEP Université Paul CézanneMarseilleFrance
  3. 3.Biology DepartmentEmory UniversityAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations