Advertisement

Mechanisms underlying predator-driven biotic resistance against introduced barnacles on the Pacific coast of Hokkaido, Japan

  • Takefumi YorisueEmail author
  • Julius A. Ellrich
  • Kyosuke Momota
Original Paper
  • 51 Downloads

Abstract

Introduced species are a major threat to coastal ecosystems worldwide. Thus, understanding biotic resistance (i.e. the ability of native species to limit introduced species) is a central goal of invasion biology. This paper examines mechanisms underlying biotic resistance. Consumption can limit introduced prey provided that native predators prefer such prey. Furthermore, predator nonconsumptive effects (NCEs), mediated through predator-released cues perceived by prey, can limit prey recruitment, a key demographic process for prey populations. However, information on predator NCEs is largely absent in the context of recruitment in introduced prey. Working on the Pacific coast of Hokkaido (Japan), we addressed this knowledge gap using native predatory dogwhelks (Nucella lima) that prey on native barnacles (Chthamalus dalli) and introduced barnacles (Balanus glandula). We experimentally examined dogwhelk preferences for barnacles in the laboratory and dogwhelk NCEs on barnacle recruitment in the field. We found that N. lima preferred B. glandula over C. dalli, likely as B. glandula prey is more profitable, as suggested by previous findings in congeneric dogwhelks. Moreover, we found that N. lima NCEs limited recruit density in C. dalli and B. glandula, likely as barnacle larvae moved away from dogwhelk cues to reduce future predation risk. Our study suggests that predator prey preferences and predator nonconsumptive limitation of prey recruitment are two mechanisms that can contribute to predator-driven biotic resistance against introduced prey.

Keywords

Rocky intertidal ecology Consumption Predator nonconsumptive effects (NCEs) Prey demography Nucella lima Balanus glandula Chthamalus dalli 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Mr. Hamano S. and Mr. Katsuragawa H. for field assistance, the Associate Editor and six anonymous reviewers for commenting on earlier manuscript versions. This project was funded through a Kiritappushitugen Gakujutsu Kenkyu Shien grant awarded to T. Y., and through a German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) postdoctoral scholarship awarded to J. A. E. The authors have declared that no conflict of interests exists.

Data accessibility

Data for this publication are available online at the Dryad Digital Repository:  https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.g085g05

References

  1. Alam AR, Noda T (2016) An experimental evaluation of the direct and indirect effects of endemic seaweeds, barnacles, and invertebrate predators on the abundance of the introduced rocky intertidal barnacle Balanus glandula. Pop Ecol 58:507–514.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10144-016-0554-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alam AR, Hagino T, Fukaya K, Okuda T, Nakaoka M, Noda T (2014) Early phase of the invasion of Balanus glandula along the coast of Eastern Hokkaido: changes in abundance, distribution, and recruitment. Biol Inv 16:1699–1708.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-013-0619-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Araujo AL, Jesse J, Judge ML, O’Connor NJ (2017) Larvae of native and non-native crabs behave differently in response to chemical cues from potential fish predators and adult crabs. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 497:212–218.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2017.09.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ashton GV, Davidson IC, Geller J, Ruiz GM (2016) Disentangling the biogeography of ship biofouling: barnacles in the Northeast Pacific. Global Ecol Biogeogr 25:739–750.  https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12450 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beermann AJ, Ellrich JA, Molis M, Scrosati RA (2013) Effects of seaweed canopies and adult barnacles on barnacle recruitment: the interplay of positive and negative influences. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 448:162–170.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2013.07.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beermann J, Boos K, Gutow L, Boersma M, Peralta AC (2018) Combined effects of predator cues and competition define habitat choice and food consumption of amphipod mesograzers. Oecologia 186:645–654.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-017-4056-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Benkwitt CE (2017) Predator effects on reef fish settlement depend on predator origin and recruit density. Ecology 98:896–902.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.1732 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Branch GM, Steffani CN (2004) Can we predict the effects of alien species? A case-history of the invasion of South Africa by Mytilus galloprovincialis (Lamarck). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 300:189–215.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2003.12.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buchanan AL, Hermann SL, Lund M, Szendrei Z (2017) A meta-analysis of non-consumptive predator effects in arthropods: the influence of organismal and environmental characteristics. Oikos 126:1233–1240.  https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.04384 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burrows MT, Hughes RN (1989) Natural foraging of the dogwhelk, Nucella lapillus (Linnaeus); the weather and whether to feed. J Moll Stud 55:285–295.  https://doi.org/10.1093/mollus/55.2.285 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burrows MT,  Hughes RN (1991) Optimal foraging decisions by dogwhelks, Nucella lapillus (L.): influences of mortality risk and rate-constrained digestion. Funct Ecol 5(4):461−475.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2389628 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Byun C, Lee EJ (2017) Ecological application of biotic resistance to control the invasion of an invasive plant, Ageratina altissima. Ecol Evol 7:2181–2192.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2799 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carroll ML, Highsmith RC (1996) Role of catastrophic disturbance in mediating Nucella-Mytilus interactions in the Alaskan rocky intertidal. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 138:125–133.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps138125 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carroll ML, Wethey DS (1990) Predator foraging behavior: effect of a novel prey species on prey selection by a marine intertidal gastropod. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 139:101–117.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0981(90)90041-A CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carthey AJ, Banks PB (2014) Naïveté in novel ecological interactions: lessons from theory and experimental evidence. Biol Rev 89:932–949.  https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12087 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Castorani MC, Hovel KA (2016) Native predator chemical cues induce anti-predation behaviors in an invasive marine bivalve. Biol Inv 18:169–181.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-015-1000-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chivers DP, Smith RJF (1998) Chemical alarm signaling in aquatic predator-prey systems: a review and prospectus. Ẻcoscience 5(3):338–352.  https://doi.org/10.1080/11956860.1998.11682471 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cole SW, Scrosati RA, Tam JC, Sussmann AV (2011) Regional decoupling between NW Atlantic barnacle recruit and adult density is related to changes in pelagic food supply and benthic disturbance. J Sea Res 65:33–37.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seares.2010.06.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Connell JH (1970) A predator-prey system in the marine intertidal region. I. Balanus glandula and several predatory species of Thais. Ecol Monogr 40:49–78.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1942441 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cox LN, Zaslavskaya NI, Marko PB (2014) Phylogeography and trans-Pacific divergence of the rocky shore gastropod Nucella lima. J Biogeogr 41:615–627.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.12217 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dunkin SDB, Hughes RN (1984) Behavioural components of prey-selection by dogwhelks, Nucella lapillus (L.), feeding on barnacles, Semibalanus balanoides (L.), in the laboratory. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 79:91–103.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0981(84)90032-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dye AH (1991) Feed preferences of Nucella crassilabrum and juvenile Concholepas concholepas (Gastropoda: Muricidae) from a rocky shore in southern Chile. J Moll Stud 57:301–307.  https://doi.org/10.1093/mollus/57.3.301 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ehlers SM, Scrosati RA, Ellrich JA (2018) Nonconsumptive predator effects on prey demography: dogwhelk cues decrease benthic mussel recruitment. J Zool 305:240–245.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jzo.12555 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Elías R, Vallarino EA (2001) The introduced barnacle Balanus glandula (Darwin) in the Mar del Plata port as a structuring species in the intertidal community. Investig Mar 29:37–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ellrich JA, Scrosati RA (2016) Water motion modulates predator nonconsumptive limitation of prey recruitment. Ecosphere 7(7):1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1402 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ellrich JA, Scrosati RA, Molis M (2015) Predator nonconsumptive effects on prey recruitment weaken with recruit density. Ecology 96:611–616.  https://doi.org/10.1890/14-1856.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ellrich JA, Scrosati RA, Bertolini C, Molis M (2016) A predator has nonconsumptive effects on different life-history stages of a prey. Mar Biol 163:5.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-015-2778-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ferrari MC, Wisenden BD, Chivers DP (2010) Chemical ecology of predator–prey interactions in aquatic ecosystems: a review and prospectus. Can J Zool 88:698–724.  https://doi.org/10.1139/Z10-029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fukaya K, Okuda T, Hori M, Yamamoto T, Nakaoka M, Noda T (2013) Variable processes that determine population growth and an invariant mean-variance relationship of intertidal barnacles. Ecosphere 4(4):1–20.  https://doi.org/10.1890/ES12-00272.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Galil BS, Clark PF, Carlton JT (2011) In the wrong place-alien marine crustaceans: distribution, biology and impacts. Springer, Heidelberg.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0591-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Geller J, Sotka EE, Kado R, Palumbi SR, Schwindt E (2008) Sources of invasions of a northeastern Pacific acorn barnacle, Balanus glandula, in Japan and Argentina. Mar Ecol Progr Ser 358:211–218.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps07466 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Grosholz E (2002) Ecological and evolutionary consequences of coastal invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 17:22–27.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(01)02358-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hart MW, Palmer AR (1987) Stereotypy, ontogeny, and heritability of drill site selection in thaidid gastropods. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 107:101–120.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0981(87)90189-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Havel JE, Kovalenko KE, Thomaz SM, Amalfitano S, Kats LB (2015) Aquatic invasive species: challenges for the future. Hydrobiologia 750:147–170.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-014-2166-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hiebert TC, Butler B, Shanks A (2016) Oregon estuarine invertebrates: Rudy’s illustrated guide to common species, 3rd edn. University of Oregon Libraries and Oregon Institute of Marine Biology, CharlestonGoogle Scholar
  36. Johnson LE, Strathmann RR (1989) Settling barnacle larvae avoid substrata previously occupied by a mobile predator. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 128:87–103.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0981(89)90094-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Johnston BR, Molis M, Scrosati RA (2012) Predator chemical cues affect prey feeding activity differently in juveniles and adults. Can J Zool 90:128–132.  https://doi.org/10.1139/z11-113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kado R (2003) Invasion of Japanese shores by the NE Pacific barnacle Balanus glandula and its ecological and biogeographical impact. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 249:199–206.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps249199 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kado R, Nanba N (2006) Balanus glandula: a new alien barnacle from the west coast of North America, established on the northeast coast of Japan. In: Koike F, Clout MN, Kawamichi M, De Poorter M, Iwatsuki K (eds) Assessment and control of biological invasion risks. Shoukadoh Book Sellers/World Consevasion Union (IUCN), Kyoto/Gland, pp 210–211Google Scholar
  40. Kats LB, Dill LM (1998) The scent of death: chemosensory assessment of predation risk by prey animals. Ecoscience 5:361–394.  https://doi.org/10.1080/11956860.1998.11682468 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kimbro DL, Cheng BS, Grosholz ED (2013) Biotic resistance in marine environments. Ecol Lett 16:821–833.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12106 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kornijów R, Pawlikowski K, Drgas A, Rolbiecki L, Rychter A (2018) Mortality of post-settlement clams Rangia cuneata (Mactridae, Bivalvia) at an early stage of invasion in the Vistula Lagoon (South Baltic) due to biotic and abiotic factors. Hydrobiologia 811:207–219.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-017-3489-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Laird MC, Griffiths CL (2008) Present distribution and abundance of the introduced barnacle Balanus glandula Darwin in South Africa. Afr J Mar Sci 30:93–100.  https://doi.org/10.2989/AJMS.2008.30.1.9.459 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Leslie HM (2005) Positive intraspecific effects trump negative effects in high-density barnacle aggregations. Ecology 86:2716–2725.  https://doi.org/10.1890/04-1767 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Menge BA, Menge DN (2013) Dynamics of coastal meta-ecosystems: the intermittent upwelling hypothesis and a test in rocky intertidal regions. Ecol Monogr 83:283–310.  https://doi.org/10.1890/12-1706.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mitchell MD, Bairos-Novak KR, Ferrari MC (2017) Mechanisms underlying the control of responses to predator odours in aquatic prey. J Exp Biol 220:1937–1946.  https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.135137 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Molis M, Preuss I, Firmenich A, Ellrich J (2011) Predation risk indirectly enhances survival of seaweed recruits but not intraspecific competition in an intermediate herbivore species. J Ecol 99:807–817.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2011.01800.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Munroe DM, Noda T (2010) Physical and biological factors contributing to changes in the relative importance of recruitment to population dynamics in open populations. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 412:151–162.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps08712 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nakaoka M, Ito N, Yamamoto T, Okuda T, Noda T (2006) Similarity of rocky intertidal assemblages along the Pacific coast of Japan: effects of spatial scales and geographic distance. Ecol Res 21:425–435.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11284-005-0138-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Orensanz JM, Schwindt E, Pastorino G, Bortolus A, Casas G, Darrigran G, Elíás R, López Gappa JJ, Obenat S, Pascual M, Penchaszadeh P, Piriz ML, Scarabino F, Spivak ED, Vallarino EA (2002) No longer the pristine confines of the world ocean: a survey of exotic marine species in the southwestern Atlantic. Biol Inv 4:115–143.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020596916153 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Palmer AR (1982) Predation and parallel evolution: recurrent parietal plate reduction in balanomorph barnacles. Paleobiology 8:31–44.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0094837300004334 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Palmer AR (1983) Growth rate as a measure of food value in thaidid gastropods: assumptions and implications for prey morphology and distribution. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 73:95–124.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0981(83)90078-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Palmer AR (1984) Prey selection by thaidid gastropods: some observational and experimental field tests of foraging models. Oecologia 62:162–172.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00379009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Palmer AR, Szymanska J, Thomas L (1982) Prolonged withdrawal: a possible predator evasion behavior in Balanus glandula (Crustacea: Cirripedia). Mar Biol 67:51–55.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00397094 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Papacostas KJ, Rielly-Carroll EW, Georgian SE, Long DJ, Princiotta SD, Quattrini AM, Reuter KE, Freestone AL (2017) Biological mechanisms of marine invasions. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 565:251–268.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps12001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Peacor SD, Peckarsky BL, Trussell GC, Vonesh JR (2013) Costs of predator-induced phenotypic plasticity: a graphical model for predicting the contribution of nonconsumptive and consumptive effects of predators on prey. Oecologia 171:1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-012-2394-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Preisser EL, Bolnick DI, Benard MF (2005) Scared to death? The effects of intimidation and consumption in predator–prey interactions. Ecology 86:501–509.  https://doi.org/10.1890/04-0719 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Quinn GP, Keough MJ (2002) Experimental design and data analyses for biologists. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511806384
  59. Rasch JA, O’Connor NJ (2012) Development and behavior of megalopae of the non-native crab Hemigrapsus sanguineus in response to chemical cues from coastal fishes. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 416:196–201.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2011.12.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rico A, Gappa JL (2006) Intertidal and subtidal fouling assemblages in a Patagonian harbour (Argentina, Southwest Atlantic). Hydrobiologia 563:9–18.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-005-1337-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Robinson TB, Pope HR, Hawken L, Binneman C (2015) Predation-driven biotic resistance fails to restrict the spread of a sessile rocky shore invader. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 522:169–179.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps11167 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rogers TL, Byrnes JE, Stachowicz JJ (2016) Native predators limit invasion of benthic invertebrate communities in Bodega Harbor, California, USA. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 545:161–173.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps11611 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Ruiz GM, Hines AH, Grosholz ED (1999) Non-indigenous species as stressors in estuarine and marine communities: assessing invasion impacts and interactions. Limnol Oceanogr 44:950–972.  https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.1999.44.3_part_2.0950 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Ruiz GM, Freestone AL, Fofonoff PW, Simkanin C (2009) Habitat distribution and heterogeneity in marine invasion dynamics: the importance of hard substrate and artificial structure. In: Wahl M (ed) Marine hard bottom communities. Springer, Berlin, pp 321–332.  https://doi.org/10.1007/b76710_23
  65. Sadchatheeswaran S, Branch GM, Robinson TB (2015) Changes in habitat complexity resulting from sequential invasions of a rocky shore: implications for community structure. Biol Inv 17:1799–1816.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-014-0837-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sanford E, Swezey DS (2008) Response of predatory snails to a novel prey following the geographic range expansion of an intertidal barnacle. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 354:220–230.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2007.11.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Scherer AE, Smee DL (2016) A review of predator diet effects on prey defensive responses. Chemoecology 26:83–100.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00049-016-0208-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Schwindt E (2007) The invasion of the acorn barnacle Balanus glandula in the south-western Atlantic 40 years later. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 87:1219–1225.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025315407056895 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Shinen JS, Morgan SG, Shan AL (2009) Invasion resistance on rocky shores: direct and indirect effects of three native predators on an exotic and a native prey species. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 378:47–54.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps07870 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Simon-Blecher N, Granevitze Z, Achituv Y (2008) Balanus glandula: from North-West America to the west coast of South Africa. Afr J Mar Sci 30:85–92.  https://doi.org/10.2989/AJMS.2008.30.1.8.458 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Stachowicz JJ, Fried H, Osman RW, Whitlatch RB (2002) Biodiversity, invasion resistance, and marine ecosystem function: reconciling pattern and process. Ecology 83:2575–2590.  https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083%5b2575:BIRAME%5d2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wada Y, Iwasaki K, Ida TY, Yusa Y (2017) Roles of the seasonal dynamics of ecosystem components in fluctuating indirect interactions on a rocky shore. Ecology 98:1093–1103.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.1743 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Weissburg M, Smee DL, Ferner MC (2014) The sensory ecology of nonconsumptive predator effects. Am Nat 184:141–157.  https://doi.org/10.1086/676644 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wethey DS (1984) Effects of crowding on fecundity in barnacles: Semibalanus (Balanus) balanoides, Balanus glandula, and Chthamalus dalli. Can J Zool 62:1788–1795.  https://doi.org/10.1139/z84-261 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Yorisue T, Ellrich JA, Momota K. Data from: Mechanisms underlying predator-driven biotic resistance against introduced barnacles on the Pacific coast of Hokkaido, Japan. Dryad Digital Repository.  https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.g085g05
  76. Zanette LY, White AF, Allen MC, Clinchy M (2011) Perceived predation risk reduces the number of offspring songbirds produced per year. Science 334:1398–1401.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1210908 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Akkeshi Marine Station, Field Science Center for Northern BiosphereHokkaido UniversityAkkeshiJapan
  2. 2.Integrative Aquatic Biology, Onagawa Field Center, Graduate School of Agricultural ScienceTohoku UniversityOnagawa, OshikaJapan
  3. 3.Marine Ecology Lab, Department of BiologySt. Francis Xavier UniversityAntigonishCanada
  4. 4.Marine Environmental Information Group, Port and Airport Research InstituteYokosukaJapan

Personalised recommendations