Advertisement

Evidence for enhanced late-stage larval quality, not survival, through maternal carry-over effects in a space monopolizing barnacle

  • Paula KastenEmail author
  • Stuart R. Jenkins
  • Réjean Tremblay
  • Augusto A. V. Flores
Primary Research Paper
  • 31 Downloads

Abstract

Understanding the effects of maternal and pelagic resource allocation on larval traits is essential to better understand population dynamics of marine benthic invertebrates. We tested how different levels of food supply to adult barnacles and their feeding larvae (nauplii) might alter survival to the settling cyprid larval stage and cyprid quality. Median development time did not vary, except when both parents and larvae were given a low food supply, which delayed the time to metamorphosis by over 40%. Survival to the cyprid stage was only affected by larval feeding, which doubled in better-fed nauplii. In contrast, cyprid size showed a more complex response, prone to additive effects of maternal and larval provisioning. Moreover, the resulting size-range observed for experimental cyprids (spanning over 70% of the minimum cyprid size) mirrored the variation found in the coastal plankton, suggesting that food supply may exert similar effects in nature. Given that barnacles nearly saturate available habitat under favorable conditions, maternal allocation resulting in enhanced late-stage larval quality may be adaptive since competition for available settling space is likely intense. On the other side, severe resource limitation through embryogenesis and larval development may impose delayed metamorphosis and thus enhanced potential for transport and the colonization of marginal habitats, where intraspecific competition may be lower and larval quality less critical.

Keywords

Chthamalus bisinuatus Supply side ecology Sessile invertebrates South Atlantic Tropical coast 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We sincerely thank two anonymous reviewers for their comments on an early manuscript version. We are also grateful to professional technicians and laboratory associates who did not stint their efforts in helping us in the lab, especially Elso da Silva, Joseilto Oliveira, Mariana B. A Biscardi. We also thank Profa. Sônia Giansella, from the Microorganism Bank Aidar & Kutner (BMA&K) for providing the microalgae needed to start our own cultures at the CEBIMar. This study was supported by FAPESP (Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo, #2008/10085-5, #2013/01446-2) as regular research Grants to AAVF, and a PhD fellowship plus mobility Grant to PK (#2012/17380-8, #2015/10327-2). This is a contribution of the Research Center for Marine Biodiversity of the University of São Paulo (NP-Biomar).

Funding

This study was funded by FAPESP (# 2008/10085-5, # 2013/01446-2, # 2012/17380-8, # 478 2015/10327-2).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.

References

  1. Anderson, D. T., 1994. Barnacles: Structure, Function, Development and Evolution. Chapman & Hall Publishers, London.Google Scholar
  2. Anil, A., L. Khandeparker, D. Desai, et al., 2010. Larval development, sensory mechanisms and physiological adaptations in acorn barnacles with special reference to Balanus amphitrite. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 392: 89–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barbosa, A., C. Gomes, G. Pereira, et al., 2016. Local biological drivers, not remote forcing, predict settlement rate to a subtropical barnacle population. Marine Ecology Progress Series 543: 201–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnes, H. & D. J. Crisp, 1956. Evidence of self-fertilization in certain species of barnacles. Journal of Marine Biological Association of the UK 35: 631–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barnes, H. & H. T. Powell, 1950. The development, general morphology and subsequent elimination of Barnacle populations, Balanus crenatus and B. balanoides, after a heavy initial settlement. Journal of Animal Ecology 19: 175–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bertness, M. D., 1989. Intraspecific competition and facilitation in a northern acorn barnacle population. Ecology 70: 257–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bueno, M., G. A. O. Moser, B. R. C. Tocci & A. A. V. Flores, 2010. Retention-favorable timing of propagule release in barnacles and periwinkles. Marine Ecology Progress Series 414: 155–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burgess, S. & D. Marshall, 2011. Are numbers enough? Colonizer phenotype and abundance interact to affect population dynamics. Journal of Animal Ecology 80: 681–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burrows, M., S. Hawkins & A. Southward, 1999. Larval development of the intertidal barnacles Chthamalus stellatus and Chthamalus montagui. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the UK 79: 93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Butler, M. J., C. B. Paris, J. S. Goldstein, H. Matsuda & R. K. Cowen, 2011. Behavior constrains the dispersal of long-lived spiny lobster larvae. Marine Ecology Progress Series 422: 223–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chan, B., 2003. Studies on Tetraclita squamosa and Tetraclita japonica (Cirripedia: Thoracica) II: larval morphology and development. Journal of Crustacean Biology 23: 522–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chan, B., D. Morritt, M. De Pirro, et al., 2006. Summer mortality: effects on the distribution and abundance of the acorn barnacle Tetraclita japonica on tropical shores. Marine Ecology Progress Series 328: 195–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Doherty, P. & T. Fowlert, 1994. Limitation in a Coral Reef Fish. Science 263: 935–939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Egan, E. A. & D. T. Anderson, 1989. Larval development of the chthamaloid barnacles Catomerus polymerus (Darwin), Chamaesipho tasmanica (Foster & Anderson) and Chthamulus antennatus (Darwin) (Crustacea: Cirripedia). Zoological Journal of the Linnology Society 95: 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Emlet, R. B. & S. S. Sadro, 2006. Linking stages of life history: how larval quality translates into juvenile performance for an intertidal barnacle (Balanus glandula). Integrative and Comparative Biology 46: 334–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Farrapeira, C., 2008. Cirripedia Balanomorpha del estuario del Río Paripe (Isla de Itamaracá, Pernambuco, Brasil). Biota Neotropica 8: 31–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Farrapeira, C., 2010. Shallow water Cirripedia of the northeastern coast of Brazil: the impact of life history and invasion on biogeography. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 392: 210–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Freuchet, F., R. Tremblay & A. A. V. Flores, 2015. Interacting environmental stressors modulate reproductive output and larval performance in a tropical intertidal barnacle. Marine Ecology Progress Series 532: 161–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gagliano, M. & M. McCormick, 2007. Maternal condition influences phenotypic selection on offspring. Journal of Animal Ecology 76: 174–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. George, S., 1996. Echinoderm egg and larval quality as a function of adult nutritional state. Oceanologica Acta 19: 297–308.Google Scholar
  21. George, S., 1999. Egg quality, larval growth and phenotypic plasticity in a forcipulate seastar. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 237: 203–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Giménez, L., 2010. Relationships between habitat conditions, larval traits, and juvenile performance in a marine invertebrate. Ecology 91: 1401–1413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gosselin, L. A. & P.-Y. Qian, 1997. Juvenile mortality in benthic marine invertebrates. Marine Ecology Progress Series 146: 265–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Harley, C. D. G., 2008. Tidal dynamics, topographic orientation, and temperature-mediated mass mortalities on rocky shores. Marine Ecology Progress Series 371: 37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hart, M. W., 1995. What are the costs of small egg size for a marine invertebrate with feeding planktonic larvae? The American Naturalist 146: 415–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Helm, M., N. Bourne & A. Lovatelli, 2004. Hatchery Culture of Bivalves: A Practical Manual. FAO—Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.Google Scholar
  27. Hentschel, B. T. & R. B. Emlet, 2000. Metamorphosis of barnacle nauplii: effects of food availability and a comparison with amphibian models. Ecology 81: 3495–3508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Holbrook, S. J., G. E. Forrester & R. J. Schmitt, 2000. Spatial patterns in abundance of a damselfish reflect availability of suitable habitat. Oecologia 122: 109–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jarrett, J., 2003. Seasonal variation in larval condition and postsettlement performance of the barnacle Semibalanus balanoides. Ecology 84: 384–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jenkins, S. R., J. Murua & M. T. Burrows, 2008. Temporal changes in the strength of density-dependent mortality and growth in intertidal barnacles. Journal of Animal Ecology 77: 573–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jones, G. P., G. R. Almany, G. R. Russ, P. F. Sale, R. S. Steneck, M. J. H. van Oppen & B. L. Willis, 2009. Larval retention and connectivity among populations of corals and reef fishes: history, advances and challenges. Coral Reefs 28: 307–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kasten, P. & A. A. V. Flores, 2013. Disruption of endogenous tidal rhythms of larval release linked to food supply and heat stress in an intertidal barnacle. Marine Ecology Progress Series 472: 185–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kingsford, M. J., J. M. Leis, A. L. Shanks, K. C. Lindeman, S. G. Morgan & J. Pineda, 2002. Sensory environments, larval abilities and local self-recruitment. Bulletin of Marine Science 70: 309–340.Google Scholar
  34. Klôh, A., C. Farrapeira, A. Rigo & R. Rocha, 2013. Intertidal native and introduced barnacles in Brazil: distribution and abundance. Marine Biodiverity Records 6: 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lacombe, D. & W. Monteiro, 1972. Larval development of balanids reared in the laboratory—Balanus amphitrite (var. amphitrite). Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz 70: 175–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Leigh, E. G., R. T. Paine, J. F. Quinn & T. H. Suchanek, 1987. Wave energy and intertidal productivity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences United States of America 84: 1314–1318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Leonard, G. H., J. M. Levine, P. R. Schmidt & M. D. Bertness, 1998. Flow-driven variation in intertidal community structure in a Maine estuary. Ecology 79: 1395–1411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Levin, L. A., 2006. Recent progress in understanding larval dispersal: new directions and digressions. Integrative and Comparative Biology 46: 282–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lockwood, J. L., P. Cassey & T. Blackburn, 2005. The role of propagule pressure in explaining species invasions. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 20: 223–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Marshall, D., T. Bolton & M. Keough, 2003. Offspring size affects the post metamorphic performance of a colonial marine invertebrate. Ecology 84: 3131–3137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Marshall, D. & M. Keough, 2006. Complex life-cycles and maternal provisioning in marine invertebrates. Integrative and Comparative Biology 46: 643–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Marshall, D. J. & T. Uller, 2007. When is a maternal effect adaptive? Oikos 116: 1957–1963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Marta-Almeida, M., J. Dubert, A. Peliz & H. Queiroga, 2006. Influence of vertical migration pattern on retention of crab larvae in a seasonal upwelling system. Marine Ecology Progress Series 307: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McAlister, J. S., 2007. Egg size and the evolution of phenotypic plasticity in larvae of the echinoid genus Strongylocentrotus. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 352: 306–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McAlister, J. S. & A. L. Moran, 2013. Effects of variation in egg energy and exogenous food on larval development in congeneric sea urchins. Marine Ecology Progress Series 490: 155–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McQuaid, C. D. & T. E. Philllips, 2006. Mesoscale variation in reproduction, recruitment and population structure of intertidal mussels with low larval input: a bay/open coast comparison. Marine Ecology Progress Series 327: 193–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Miller, K. M. & T. H. Carefoot, 1989. The role of spatial and size refuges in the interaction between juvenile barnacles and grazing limpets. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 134: 157–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Miron, G., B. Boudreau & E. Bourget, 1995. Use of larval supply in benthic ecology—testing correlations between larval supply and larval settlement. Marine Ecology Progress Series 124: 301–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Moran, A. & R. B. Emlet, 2001. Offspring size and performance in variable environments: field studies on a marine snail. Ecology 82: 1597–1612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Moreira, F. T., J. Harari & A. A. V. Flores, 2007. Neustonic distribution of decapod planktonic stages and competence of brachyuran megalopae in coastal waters. Marine and Freshwater Research 58: 519–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Moyse, J., 1960. Mass rearing of barnacle cyprids in the laboratory. Nature 185: 120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Nunes, C., J. Rodeia, B. Paulino, E. Isidro & M. De Girolamo, 2017. Larval rearing of the giant Azorean barnacle, Megabalanus azoricus (Pilsbry, 1916): feeding trials, larval development and settlement on artificial substrata. Aquaculture Research 48: 2812–2826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ohse, S., R. B. Derner, R. Á. Ozório, R. G. Corrêa, E. B. Furlong & P. C. R. Cunha, 2015. Lipid content and fatty acid profiles in ten species of microalgae. Idesia 33: 93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pechenik, J., D. Wendt & J. Jarrett, 1998. Metamorphosis is not a new beginning larval experience influences juvenile performance. Bioscience 48: 901–910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pettersen, A. K., C. R. White & D. J. Marshall, 2015. Why does offspring size affect performance? Integrating metabolic scaling with life-history theory. Proceedings of the Royal Society- B 282: 20151946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pineda, J., N. B. Reyns & V. R. Starczak, 2009. Complexity and simplification in understanding recruitment in benthic populations. Population Ecology 51: 17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pulliam, H. R., 1998. Sources, sinks and population regulation. American Naturalist 132: 652–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Reitzel, A. M. & A. Heyland, 2007. Reduction in morphological plasticity in echinoid larvae: relationship of plasticity with maternal investment and food availability. Evolutionary Ecology Research 9: 109–121.Google Scholar
  59. Salze, G., D. R. Tocher, W. J. Roy & D. A. Robertson, 2005. Egg quality determinants in cod (Gadus morhua L.): egg performance and lipids in eggs from farmed and wild broodstock. Aquatic Research 36: 1488–1499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sanford, E., D. Bermudez, M. D. Bertness & S. D. Gaines, 1994. Flow, food-supply and acorn barnacle population dynamics. Marine Ecology Progress Series 104: 49–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Schneider, A., W. Rasband & K. Eliceiri, 2012. NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nature Methods 9: 671–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Shanks, A., B. A. Grantham & M. H. Carr, 2003. Dispersal distrance and the size and spacing of marine reserves. Ecological Applications 13: S159–S169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Simons, A. M., 2007. Selection for increased allocation to offspring number under environmental unpredicability. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 20: 813–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Stearns, S. C., 1976. Life-history tactics—a review of the ideas. The Quarterly Review of Biology 51: 3–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Steer, M., N. A. Moltschaniwskyj, D. S. Nichols & M. Miller, 2004. The role of temperature and maternal ration in embryo survival: using the dumpling squid Euprymna tasmanica as a model. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 307: 73–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Stone, C. J., 1989. A comparison of algal diets for cirripede nauplii. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 132: 17–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Torres, G. et al., 2016. Persistent and context-dependent effects of the larval feeding environment on post-metamorphic performance through the adult stage. Marine Ecology Progress Series 545: 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tremblay, R., F. Olivier, E. Bourget & D. Rittschof, 2007. Physiological condition of Balanus amphitrite cyprid larvae determines habitat selection success. Marine Ecology Progress Series 340: 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Underwood, A.J., 1997. Experiments in ecology: their logical design and interpretation using analysis of variance. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Van Allen, B., & V. Rudolf, 2013. Ghosts of habitats past: environmental carry-over effects drive population dynamics in novel habitat. American Naturalist 181: 596–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Yan, Y., & B. Chan, 2001. Larval development of Chthamalus malayensis (Cirripedia: Thoracica) reared in the laboratory. Journal of the Biological Association of the UK 81: 623–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Yan, Y., B. K. K. Chan & G. A. Williams, 2006. Reproductive development of the barnacle Chthamalus malayensis in Hong Kong: implications for the life-history patterns of barnacles on seasonal, tropical shores. Marine Biology 148: 875–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidade de São Paulo, Centro de Biologia Marinha (CEBIMar/USP)São SebastiãoBrazil
  2. 2.School of Ocean SciencesBangor UniversityAngleseyUK
  3. 3.Institut des sciences de la mer−Université du Québec à RimouskiRimouskiCanada

Personalised recommendations