Biological Invasions

, Volume 20, Issue 8, pp 2015–2031 | Cite as

A dynamic energy budget model to describe the reproduction and growth of invasive starfish Asterias amurensis in southeast Australia

  • Antonio AgüeraEmail author
  • Maria Byrne
Original Paper


The introduction of alien species is a global phenomenon that alters ecosystems structure and functioning. Invasive species are responsible for substantial economic and ecological losses. Invasive species impact resource availability, outcompeting and even causing extinction of native species. The management of invasive species requires knowledge on the ecology, physiology and population dynamics of these species. In a world where environmental conditions are changing fast due to global climate change and other anthropogenic stressors, a more comprehensive knowledge of the life history and physiology of these species is urgently needed. The DEB theory is unique in capturing the metabolic processes of an organism through its entire life cycle, and thus, is a useful tool to model lifetime feeding, growth, reproduction, and responses to changes in biotic and abiotic conditions. In this work, we estimated the parameters of a DEB model for Asterias amurensis. This starfish was introduced in Tasmania and is considered the most serious marine pest in Australia where it has caused local extinctions of several species. Asterias amurensis is a major predator and is a keystone species exerting top-down control of its prey populations by achieving large densities. We determined the influence of biotic and abiotic factors on the performance of A. amurensis. The DEB model presented here includes energy handling rules to describe gonad and pyloric caeca cycles. Model parameters were used to explore population dynamics of populations of A. amurensis in Australia. The DEB model allowed us to characterise the ecophysiology of A. amurensis, providing new insights on the role of food availability and temperature on its life cycle and reproduction strategy. Moreover it is a powerful tool for risk management of already established invasive populations and of regions with a high invasion risk.


Asterias amurensis Starfish Keystone predator Dynamic energy budget Biological traits 



Thanks to Dr. Patti Virtue for assistance in collecting specimens. We also thank two anonymous reviewers and the handling editor for their comments and suggestions which helped to improve this manuscript. This is contribution number 218 of the Sydney Institute of Marine Science.

Supplementary material

10530_2018_1676_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (813 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 813 kb)


  1. Agüera A (2015) The role of starfish (Asterias rubens) predation in blue mussel (Mytilus edulis) seedbed stability. Wageningen University. Ph.D. thesisGoogle Scholar
  2. Agüera A, Trommelen M, Burrows F et al (2012) Winter feeding activity of the common starfish (Asterias rubens L.): the role of temperature and shading. J Sea Res 72:106–112. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Agüera A, Collard M, Jossart Q et al (2015) Parameter estimations of dynamic energy budget (DEB) model over the life history of a key Antarctic species: the Antarctic sea star Odontaster validus Koehler, 1906. PLoS ONE 10:e0140078. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Arthur T, Summerson R, Mazur K (2015) A comparison of the costs and effectiveness of prevention, eradication, containment and asset protection of invasive marine species incursions. ABARES Report, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  5. Augustine S, Lika K, Kooijman SALM (2017) Comment on the ecophysiology of the Greenland shark, Somniosus microcephalus. Polar Biol. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Babcock RC, Milton DA, Pratchett MS (2016) Relationships between size and reproductive output in the crown-of-thorns starfish. Mar Biol 163:234. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bacher C, Gangnery A (2006) Use of dynamic energy budget and individual based models to simulate the dynamics of cultivated oyster populations. J Sea Res 56:140–155. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barker MF, Nichols D (1983) Reproduction, recruitment and juvenile ecology of the starfish, Asterias rubens and Mathasterias glacialis. J Mar Biol Assoc U K 63:745–765. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bax N, Dunstan P, Gunasekera R, et al (2006) Evaluation of national control plan management options for the North Pacific seastar Asterias amurensis. CSIRO Marine Research ReportGoogle Scholar
  10. Briggs CF (1983) A study of some sublittoral populations of Asterias rubens (L.) and their prey. University of Liverpool. Ph.D. thesisGoogle Scholar
  11. Bruce BD (1998) A summary of CSIRO studies on the larval ecology of Asterias amurensis. In: Goggin CL (ed) Proceedings of a meeting on the biology and management of the introduced seastar Asterias amurensis in Australian Waters. Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests Technical Report Number 15, CSIRO Division of Fisheries, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, pp 36–41Google Scholar
  12. Bruce BD, Sutton CA, Lyne V (1995) Laboratory and field studies of the larval distribution and duration of the introduced seastar Asterias amurensis with updated and improved prediction of the species spread based on a larval dispersal model. CSIRO Division of Fisheries ReportGoogle Scholar
  13. Byrne M, Morrice MG, Wolf B (1997) Introduction of the northern Pacific asteroid Asterias amurensis to Tasmania: reproduction and current distribution. Mar Biol 127:673–685. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Byrne M, O’Hara TD, Lawrence JM (2013) Asterias amurensis. In: Lawrence JM (ed) Starfish: biology and ecology of the Asteroidea. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp 174–180Google Scholar
  15. Byrne M, Gall M, Wolfe K, Agüera A (2016) From pole to pole: the potential for the Arctic seastar Asterias amurensis to invade a warming Southern Ocean. Glob Change Biol 22:3874–3887. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Calderwood J, O’Connor NE, Roberts D (2016) Efficiency of starfish mopping in reducing predation on cultivated benthic mussels (Mytilus edulis Linnaeus). Aquaculture 452:88–96. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ehrenfeld JG (2010) Ecosystem consequences of biological invasions. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 41:59–80. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Elzhov TV, Mullen KM, Spiess A-N, Bolker B (2013) minpack.lm: R interface to the Levenberg–Marquardt nonlinear least-squares algorithm found in MINPACK, plus support for bounds.
  19. Freitas V, Cardoso JFMF, Lika K et al (2010) Temperature tolerance and energetics: a dynamic energy budget-based comparison of North Atlantic marine species. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 365:3553–3565. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Guillou M, Joly-Turquin G, Leyzour S et al (2012) Factors controlling juvenile growth and population structure of the starfish Asterias rubens in intertidal habitats: field and experimental approaches. J Mar Biol Assoc U K 92:367–378. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Guisan A, Tingley R, Baumgartner JB et al (2013) Predicting species distributions for conservation decisions. Ecol Lett 16:1424–1435. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Harrold C, Pearse JS (1980) Allocation of pyloric caecum reserves in fed and starved sea stars, Pisaster giganteus (Stimpson): somatic maintenance comes before reproduction. J Exp Mar Bio Ecol 48:169–183. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hatanaka M, Kosaka M (1958) Biological studies on the population of the starfish Asterias amurensis in Sendai Bay. Tohoku J Agric Res 9:159–178Google Scholar
  24. Huret M, Vandromme P, Petitgas P, Pecquerie L (2012) Connectivity patterns of anchovy larvae in the Bay of Biscay from a coupled transport-bioenergetic model forced by size-structured zooplankton. In: ICES-CIEM annual science conference. Bergen, p 14Google Scholar
  25. Jangoux M, van Impe E (1977) The annual pyloric cycle of Asterias rubens L. (echinodermata: Asteroidea). J Exp Mar Bio Ecol 30:165–184. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jangoux M, Vloebergh M (1973) Contribution a l’étude du cycle annuel de reproduction d’une population d’Asterias rubens (Echinodermata, Asteroidea) du littoral belge. Neth J Sea Res 6:389–408. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jusup M, Klanjscek T, Matsuda H, Kooijman SALM (2011) A full lifecycle bioenergetic model for bluefin tuna. PLoS ONE 6:e21903. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Jusup M, Klanjšček T, Matsuda H (2014) Simple measurements reveal the feeding history, the onset of reproduction, and energy conversion efficiencies in captive bluefin tuna. J Sea Res 94:144–155. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jusup M, Sousa T, Domingos T et al (2017) Science direct physics of metabolic organization. Phys Life Rev 20:1–39. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Kashenko SD (2005) Development of the starfish Asterias amurensis under laboratory conditions. Russ J Mar Biol 31:36–42. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kearney M, Porter W (2009) Mechanistic niche modelling: combining physiological and spatial data to predict species’ ranges. Ecol Lett 12:334–350. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Kearney M, Simpson SJ, Raubenheimer D, Helmuth B (2010a) Modelling the ecological niche from functional traits. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 365:3469–3483. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kearney MR, Wintle BA, Porter WP (2010b) Correlative and mechanistic models of species distribution provide congruent forecasts under climate change. Conserv Lett 3:203–213. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kooijman SALM (2010) Dynamic energy budget theory for metabolic organisation, 3rd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  35. Kooijman SALM (2014) Metabolic acceleration in animal ontogeny: an evolutionary perspective. J Sea Res 94:128–137. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kuris AM, Lafferty KD, Grygier MJ (1996) Detection and preliminary evaluation of natural enemies for possible biological control of the Northern Pacific seastar, Asterias amurensis. Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests, Report #3Google Scholar
  37. Lika K, Kearney MR, Freitas V et al (2011a) The “covariation method” for estimating the parameters of the standard dynamic energy budget model I: philosophy and approach. J Sea Res 66:270–277. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lika K, Kearney MR, Kooijman SALM (2011b) The “covariation method” for estimating the parameters of the standard dynamic energy budget model II: properties and preliminary patterns. J Sea Res 66:278–288. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Liu L, Piper B (2016) Predicting the total economic impacts of invasive species: the case of B. rubostriata (red streaked leafhopper). Ecol Econ 128:139–146. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lockhart SJ, Ritz DA (2001) Preliminary observations of the feeding periodicity and selectivity of the introduced seastar, Asterias amurensis, in Tasmania, Australia. Pap Proc R Soc Tasmania 135:25–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lowe S, Browne M, Boudjelas S, De Poorter M (2004) 100 of the world’s worst invasive alien species: A selection from the global invasive database, November 2. The invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG) a specialist group of th Species Survival Commission (SSC) of the World Conservation Union (IUCN)Google Scholar
  42. Marn N, Jusup M, Legović T et al (2017) Environmental effects on growth, reproduction, and life-history traits of loggerhead turtles. Ecol Modell 360:163–178. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Maury O, Faugeras B, Shin Y-J et al (2007) Modeling environmental effects on the size-structured energy flow through marine ecosystems. Part 1: the model. Prog Oceanogr 74:479–499. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Menge BA (1982) Effects of feeding on the environment: Asteroidea. In: Jangoux M, Lawerence JM (eds) Echinoderm nutrition. AA Balkema Publishers, Rotterdam, pp 521–551Google Scholar
  45. Monaco CJ, Wethey DS, Helmuth B (2014) A dynamic energy budget (DEB) model for the Keystone Predator Pisaster ochraceus. PLoS ONE 9:e104658. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. Morris AE (2002) Early life history of the introduced seastar Asterias amurensis in the Derwent estuary, Tasmania: the potential for ecology-based management. University of Tasmania. Ph.D. thesisGoogle Scholar
  47. Nauen CE (1978) The growth of the sea star, Asterias rubens, and its role as benthic predator in Kiel Bay. Kiel Meeresforsch 4:68–81Google Scholar
  48. Paik S-G, Park H-S, Yi SK, Yun SG (2005) Developmental duration and morphology of the sea star Asterias amurensis, in Tongyeong, Korea. Ocean Sci J 40:65–70. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Parry GD, Cohen BF (2001) The distribution, abundance and population dynamics of the exotic seastar Asterias amurensis during the first three years of its invasion of port Phillip Bay. Marine and Freshwater Resources Institute Report No 33Google Scholar
  50. Pecquerie L, Petitgas P, Kooijman SALM (2009) Modeling fish growth and reproduction in the context of the dynamic energy budget theory to predict environmental impact on anchovy spawning duration. J Sea Res 62:93–105. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pecquerie L, Fablet R, De Pontual H et al (2012) Reconstructing individual food and growth histories from biogenic carbonates. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 447:151–164. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pereyra PJ (2016) Revisiting the use of the invasive species concept: an empirical approach. Austral Ecol 41:519–528. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Propp MV, Ryabushko VI, Zhuchikhina AA, Propp LN (1983) Seasonal changes in respiration, ammonia and phosphate excretion, and activity of carbohydrate-metabolism enzymes in four echinoderm species from the sea of Japan. Comp Biochem Physiol Part B Comp Biochem 75:707–711. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. R Core Team (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. the R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
  55. Richardson MF, Sherman CDH, Lee RS et al (2016) Multiple dispersal vectors drive range expansion in an invasive marine species. Mol Ecol 25:5001–5014. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Ross DJ, Johnson CR, Hewitt CL (2003) Assessing the ecological impacts of an introduced seastar: the importance of multiple methods. Biol Invasions 5:3–21. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ross DJ, Johnson CR, Hewitt CL, Ruiz GM (2004) Interaction and impacts of two introduced species on a soft sediment marine assemblage in Tasmania. Mar Biol 144:747–756. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sarà G, Palmeri V, Rinaldi A et al (2013) Predicting biological invasions in marine habitats through eco-physiological mechanistic models: a case study with the bivalve Brachidontes pharaonis. Divers Distrib 19:1235–1247. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Saraiva S, van der MM, Kooijman SALM et al (2012) Validation of a dynamic energy budget (DEB) model for the blue mussel Mytilus edulis. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 463:141–158. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sloan NA, Aldridge TH (1981) Observations on an aggregation of the starfish Asterias rubens L. in Morecambe Bay, Lancashire, England. J Nat Hist 15:407–418. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Smith GFM (1940) Factors limiting distribution and size in the starfish. J Fish Res Board Can 5a:84–103. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Thomas Y, Garen P, Pouvreau S (2011a) Application of a bioenergetic growth model to larvae of the pearl oyster Pinctada margaritifera L. J Sea Res 66:331–339. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Thomas Y, Mazurié J, Alunno-Bruscia M et al (2011b) Modelling spatio-temporal variability of Mytilus edulis (L.) growth by forcing a dynamic energy budget model with satellite-derived environmental data. J Sea Res 66:308–317. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Uthicke S, Schaffelke B, Byrne M (2009) A boom–bust phylum? ecological and evolutionary consequences of density variations in echinoderms. Ecol Monogr 79:3–24. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. van der Meer J (2006) An introduction to dynamic energy budget (DEB) models with special emphasis on parameter estimation. J Sea Res 56:85–102. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. van der Meer J, Kooijman SALM (2014) Inference on energetics of deep-sea fish that cannot be aged: the case of the hagfish. J Sea Res 94:138–143. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. van der Veer HW, Cardoso JFMF, van der Meer J (2006) The estimation of DEB parameters for various Northeast Atlantic bivalve species. J Sea Res 56:107–124. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Walsh JR, Carpenter SR, Vander Zanden MJ, Vander Zander MJ (2016) Invasive species triggers a massive loss of ecosystem services through a trophic cascade. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113:4081–4085. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Wares JP (2001) Biogegraphy of Asterias: North Atlantic climate change and speciation. Biol Bull 201:95–103. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Watts S, Lawrence JM (1990) The effect of temperature and salinity interactions on righting, feeding and growth in the sea star Luidia clathrata (Say). Mar Freshw Behav Physiol 17:159–165. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Whitehead J (2008) Derwent estuary introduced marine and intertidal species: review of distribution, issues, recent actions and management options. Derwent Stuary Program, TasmaniaGoogle Scholar
  72. Witman JD, Genovese SJ, Bruno JF et al (2003) Massive prey recruitment and the control of rocky subtidal communities on large spatial scales. Ecol Monogr 73:441–462. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wood SN (2006) Generalized additive models: an introduction with r, 2nd edn. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratoire de Biologie MarineUniversité Libre de BruxellesBrusselsBelgium
  2. 2.Schools of Medical and Biological SciencesUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations