Biological Invasions

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 169–181

Native predator chemical cues induce anti-predation behaviors in an invasive marine bivalve

Original Paper

Abstract

The ability of non-native prey to detect native predators and respond with effective anti-predation behaviors may be an important factor mediating invasion success and biotic resistance. However, our current understanding of how native predator cues influence invasive prey is greatly limited. In estuaries and coastal seas—among the most heavily invaded ecosystems—olfaction of chemical cues is a primary mechanism by which sessile and sedentary organisms evaluate predation risk. We tested the hypothesis that chemical cues from a suite of predators native to southern California, USA, estuaries induce anti-predation behaviors in an invasive bivalve, the Asian nest mussel Arcuatula senhousia. In a laboratory experiment, we manipulated chemical cues from injured conspecifics and a functionally and taxonomically diverse group of native predators that may represent important agents of biotic resistance. We then measured several potential anti-predation behaviors that may be key to Arcuatula survival due to its modest structural defenses. As predicted, Arcuatula changed behaviors in response to cues from predators and injured conspecifics. Interestingly, however, Arcuatula was able to discriminate among cues from different native predators: mussels fed less when exposed to cues from snails and stingrays, burrowed deeper in the presence of cues from injured conspecifics and lobsters, and increased aggregation in response to snail cues. Our findings demonstrate that native predators can induce potentially-defensive behavioral changes in an invasive marine bivalve. The ability for Arcuatula to detect and selectively respond to novel predators may play a role in their invasion success in southern California and other regions globally.

Keywords

Anti-predation behavior Chemical cues Estuary Inducible defenses Native predators Olfaction 

References

  1. Aho K, Derryberry D, Peterson T (2014) Model selection for ecologists: the worldviews of AIC and BIC. Ecology 95:631–636PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Apfelbach R, Blanchard CD, Blanchard RJ, Hayes RA, McGregor IS (2005) The effects of predator odors in mammalian prey species: a review of field and laboratory studies. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 29:1123–1144PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berthon K (2015) How do native species respond to invaders? Mechanistic and trait-based perspectives. Biol Invasions 17:2199–2211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bertness M, Grosholz E (1985) Population dynamics of the ribbed mussel, Geukensia demissa: the costs and benefits of an aggregated distribution. Oecologia 67:192–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bourdeau PE, Pangle KL, Reed EM, Peacor SD (2013) Finely tuned response of native prey to an invasive predator in a freshwater system. Ecology 94:1449–1455PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Carthey AJR, Banks PB (2014) Naïveté in novel ecological interactions: lessons from theory and experimental evidence. Biol Rev 89:932–949PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Castorani MCN, Hovel KA (2015) Invasive prey indirectly increase predation on their native competitors. Ecology 96:1911–1922PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cheng BS, Hovel KA (2010) Biotic resistance to invasion along an estuarine gradient. Oecologia 164:1049–1059PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cheung S, Lam S, Gao Q, Mak KK, Shin PKS (2004) Induced anti-predator responses of the green mussel, Perna viridis (L.), on exposure to the predatory gastropod, Thais clavigera Küster, and the swimming crab, Thalamita danae Stimpson. Mar Biol 144:675–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cheung S, Luk K, Shin P (2006) Predator-labeling effect on byssus production in marine mussels Perna viridis (L.) and Brachidontes variabilis (Krauss). J Chem Ecol 32:1501–1512PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chivers DP, Smith RJF (1998) Chemical alarm signalling in aquatic predator–prey systems: a review and prospectus. Ecoscience 5:338–352Google Scholar
  13. Cochran WG (1941) The distribution of the largest of a set of estimated variances as a fraction of their total. Ann Eugen 11:47–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Côté IM (1995) Effects of predatory crab effluent on byssus production in mussels. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 188:233–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Côté IM, Jelnikar E (1999) Predator-induced clumping behaviour in mussels (Mytilus edulis Linnaeus). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 235:201–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Crooks JA (1996) The population ecology of an exotic mussel, Musculista senhousia, in a southern California bay. Estuaries 19:42–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Crooks JA (1998a) Habitat alteration and community-level effects of an exotic mussel, Musculista senhousia. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 162:137–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Crooks JA (1998b) The effects of the introduced mussel, Musculista senhousia, and other anthropogenic agents on benthic ecosystems of Mission Bay, San Diego. Ph.D. dissertation. University of California, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  19. Crooks JA (2001) Assessing invader roles within changing ecosystems: historical and experimental perspectives on an exotic mussel in an urbanized lagoon. Biol Invasions 3:23–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Crooks JA (2002) Predators of the invasive mussel Musculista senhousia (Mollusca: Mytilidae). Pac Sci 56:49–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Crooks JA, Khim HS (1999) Architectural vs. biological effects of a habitat-altering, exotic mussel, Musculista senhousia. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 240:53–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Czarnołęski M, Müller T, Adamus K, Ogorzelska G, Sog M (2010) Injured conspecifics alter mobility and byssus production in zebra mussels Dreissena polymorpha. Fundam Appl Limnol Arch Hydrobiol 176:269–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dexter DM, Crooks JA (2000) Benthic communities and the invasion of an exotic mussel in Mission Bay, San Diego: a long-term history. Bull South Calif Acad Sci 99:128–146Google Scholar
  24. Dunnett CW (1955) A multiple comparison procedure for comparing several treatments with a control. J Am Stat Assoc 50:1096–1121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Elton CS (1958) The ecology of invasions by animals and plant. Methuen, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ferrari MCO, Wisenden BD, Chivers DP (2010) Chemical ecology of predator–prey interactions in aquatic ecosystems: a review and prospectus. Can J Zool 88:698–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Flynn AM, Smee DL (2010) Behavioral plasticity of the soft-shell clam, Mya arenaria (L.), in the presence of predators increases survival in the field. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 383:32–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fréchette M, Aitken AE, Pagé L (1992) Interdependence of food and space limitation of a benthic suspension feeder: consequences for self-thinning relationships. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 83:55–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Garner YL, Litvaitis MK (2013) Effects of injured conspecifics and predators on byssogenesis, attachment strength and movement in the blue mussel, Mytilus edulis. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 448:136–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Grason EW, Miner BG (2012) Behavioral plasticity in an invaded system: non-native whelks recognize risk from native crabs. Oecologia 169:105–115PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Griffiths CL, Richardson CA (2006) Chemically induced predator avoidance behaviour in the burrowing bivalve Macoma balthica. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 331:91–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Grosholz E (2010) Avoidance by grazers facilitates spread of an invasive hybrid plant. Ecol Lett 13:145–153PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hamilton W (1971) Geometry for the selfish herd. J Theor Biol 31:295–311PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hay ME (2009) Marine chemical ecology: chemical signals and cues structure marine populations, communities, and ecosystems. Ann Rev Mar Sci 1:193–212PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hay ME, Steinberg PD (1992) The chemical ecology of plant-herbivor interactions in marine versus terrestrial communities. In: Rosenthal GA, Berenbaum MR (eds) Herbivores: their interaction with secondary metabolites, evolutionary and ecological processes. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 371–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hurvich CM, Tsai CL (1989) Regression and time series model selection in small samples. Biometrika 76:297–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Katz LB, Dill LM (1998) The scent of death: chemosensory assessment of predation risk by animals. Ecoscience 5:361–394Google Scholar
  38. Kimbro DL, Cheng BS, Grosholz ED (2013) Biotic resistance in marine environments. Ecol Lett 16:821–833PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kushner RB, Hovel KA (2006) Effects of native predators and eelgrass habitat structure on the introduced Asian mussel Musculista senhousia (Benson in Cantor) in southern California. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 332:166–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Largier JL, Hollibaugh JT, Smith SV (1997) Seasonally hypersaline estuaries in Mediterranean-climate regions. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 45:789–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Leonard GH, Bertness MD, Yund PO (1999) Crab predation, waterborne cues, and inducible defenses in the blue mussel, Mytilus edulis. Ecology 80:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lima SL (2002) Putting predators back into behavioral predator–prey interactions. Trends Ecol Evol 17:70–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lin J (1991) Predator–prey interactions between blue crabs and ribbed mussels living in clumps. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 32:61–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. MacDonald KB (1969) Quantitative studies of salt marsh mollusc faunas from the North American Pacific coast. Ecol Monogr 39:33–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Maron J, Vilà M (2001) When do herbivores affect plant invasion? Evidence for the natural enemies and biotic resistance hypotheses. Oikos 95:361–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mazerolle MJ (2014) AICcmodavg: model selection and multimodel inference based on (Q)AIC(c). R package version 2.00. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=AICcmodavg
  47. Meredith T, Kajiura S (2010) Olfactory morphology and physiology of elasmobranchs. J Exp Biol 213:3449–3456PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Michael SW (2005) Reef sharks & rays of the world: a guide to their identification, behaviour and ecology. Lighthouse Press, AnnapolisGoogle Scholar
  49. Naddafi R, Rudstam LG (2013) Predator-induced behavioural defences in two competitive invasive species: the zebra mussel and the quagga mussel. Anim Behav 86:1275–1284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nakaoka M (2000) Nonlethal effects of predators on prey populations: predator-mediated change in bivalve growth. Ecology 81:1031–1045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Nicastro KR, Zardi GI, McQuaid CD (2007) Behavioural response of invasive Mytilus galloprovincialis and indigenous Perna perna mussels exposed to risk of predation. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 336:169–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Nunes AL, Orizaola G, Laurila A, Rebelo R (2014) Rapid evolution of constitutive and inducible defenses against an invasive predator. Ecology 95:1520–1530PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Palmer A, Szymanska J, Thomas L (1982) Prolonged withdrawal: a possible predator evasion behavior in Balanus glandula (Crustacea: Cirripedia). Mar Biol 67:51–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Payne CM, Tillberg CV, Suarez AV (2004) Recognition systems and biological invasions. Ann Bot Fenn 41:843–858Google Scholar
  55. Pinheiro JC, Bates DM (2000) Mixed-effects models in S and SPLUS. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pinheiro JC, Bates DM, DebRoy S, Sarkar D, R Core Team (2014) nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1-117. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nlme
  57. Ponder WF, Vokes EH (1988) A revision of the Indo-West Pacific fossil and recent species of Murex s.s. and Haustellum (Mollusca: Gastropoda: Muricidae). Records of the Australian MuseumGoogle Scholar
  58. R Core Team (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/
  59. Reimer O, Tedengren M (1996) Phenotypical improvement of morphological defences in the mussel Mytilus edulis induced by exposure to the predator Asterias rubens. Oikos 75:383–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Reusch TBH (1998) Native predators contribute to invasion resistance to the non-indigenous bivalve Musculista senhousia in southern California, USA. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 170:159–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Reusch TBH, Williams SL (1998) Variable responses of native eelgrass Zostera marina to a non-indigenous bivalve Musculista senhousia. Oecologia 113:428–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Robinson JV, Wellborn GA (1988) Ecological resistance to the invasion of a freshwater clam, Corbicula fluminea: fish predation effects. Oecologia 77:445–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Ruesink JL, Lenihan HS, Trimble AC, Heiman KW, Micheli F, Byers JE, Kay MC (2005) Introduction of non-native oysters: ecosystem effects and restoration implications. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 36:643–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Ruiz GM, Fofonoff P, Hines AH, Grosholz ED (1999) Non-indigenous species as stressors in estuarine and marine communities: assessing invasion impacts and interactions. Limnol Oceanogr 44:950–972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sih A (1985) Evolution, predator avoidance, and unsuccessful predation. Am Nat 125:153–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sih A, Bolnick DI, Luttbeg B, Orrock JL, Peacor SD, Pintor LM, Preisser E, Rehage JS, Vonesh JR (2010) Predator–prey naïveté, antipredator behavior, and the ecology of predator invasions. Oikos 119:610–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Smee DL, Weissburg MJ (2006a) Clamming up: environmental forces diminish the perceptive ability of bivalve prey. Ecology 87:1587–1598PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Smee DL, Weissburg MJ (2006b) Hard clams (Mercenaria mercenaria) evaluate predation risk using chemical signals from predators and injured conspecifics. J Chem Ecol 32:605–619PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Smith L, Jennings J (2000) Induced defensive responses by the bivalve Mytilus edulis to predators with different attack modes. Mar Biol 136:461–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sousa R, Gutiérrez JL, Aldridge DC (2009) Non-indigenous invasive bivalves as ecosystem engineers. Biol Invasions 11:2367–2385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Stachowicz JJ, Whitlatch RB, Osman RW (1999) Species diversity and invasion resistance in a marine ecosystem. Science 286:1577–1579PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Stiven AE, Gardner SA (1992) Population processes in the ribbed mussel Geukensia demissa (Dillwyn) in a North Carolina salt marsh tidal gradient: spatial pattern, predation, growth and mortality. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 160:81–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Tegner MJ, Levin LA (1983) Spiny lobsters and sea urchins: analysis of a predator–prey interaction. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 73:125–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Thompson JN (1998) Rapid evolution as an ecological process. Trends Ecol Evol 13:329–332PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Trussell GC, Ewanchuk PJ, Bertness MD, Silliman BR (2004) Trophic cascades in rocky shore tide pools: distinguishing lethal and nonlethal effects. Oecologia 139:427–432PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Underwood AJ (1997) Experiments in ecology: their logical design and interpretation using analysis of variance. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  77. Vaudo J, Lowe C (2006) Movement patterns of the round stingray Urobatis halleri (Cooper) near a thermal outfall. J Fish Biol 68:1756–1766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Warton D, Hui F (2011) The arcsine is asinine: the analysis of proportions in ecology. Ecology 92:3–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Webster DR, Weissburg MJ (2009) The hydrodynamics of chemical cues among aquatic organisms. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 41:73–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Weissburg M, Ferner M, Pisut D, Smee DL (2002) Ecological consequences of chemically mediated prey perception. J Chem Ecol 28:1953–1970PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Werner EE, Peacor SD (2003) A review of trait-mediated indirect interactions in ecological communities. Ecology 84:1083–1100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Williams SL (2007) Introduced species in seagrass ecosystems: status and concerns. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 350:89–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Williams SL, Ebert TA, Allen BJ (2005) Does the recruitment of a non-native mussel in native eelgrass habitat explain their disjunct adult distributions? Divers Distrib 11:409–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Wisenden BD (2000) Olfactory assessment of predation risk in the aquatic environment. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 355:1205–1208PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Wudkevich K, Wisenden BD, Chiver DP, Smith RJF (1997) Reactions of Gammarus lacustris to chemical stimuli from natural predators and injured conspecifics. J Chem Ecol 23:1163–1173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Yoshida T, Jones LE, Ellner SP, Fussmann GF, Hairston NG (2003) Rapid evolution drives ecological dynamics in a predator–prey system. Nature 424:303–306PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Zimmer-Faust RK, Case JF (1982) Odors influencing foraging behavior of the California spiny lobster, Panulirus interruptus, and other decapod crustacea. Mar Behav Physiol 9:35–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Zuur A, Ieno E, Walker N, Saveliev AA, Smith GM (2009) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Coastal and Marine Institute Laboratory and Department of BiologySan Diego State UniversitySan DiegoUSA
  2. 2.Marine Science InstituteUniversity of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraUSA

Personalised recommendations