Predatory impacts of the invasive ‘killer shrimp’ Dikerogammarus villosus on a resident amphipod and isopod (Crustacea: Malacostraca) are influenced by water quality and habitat type
- 32 Downloads
The Ponto-Caspian amphipod Dikerogammarus villosus has invaded Central European and British freshwaters and its arrival is associated with biodiversity decline, as D. villosus is predatory towards many macroinvertebrate taxa, including resident amphipods such as Crangonyx pseudogracilis and isopods such as Asellus aquaticus. I investigated how differential physiological tolerance, habitat use and predation may drive coexistence or exclusion among D. villosus and resident ‘supertramp’ prey such as C. pseudogracilis. Experiments revealed that D. villosus could not survive 12 h in the extremely poor water qualities that C. pseudogracilis and A. aquaticus commonly live. Experiments manipulating oxygen levels, revealed low survivorship of C. pseudogracilis and A. aquaticus in the presence of D. villosus at higher oxygen levels but this survivorship increased significantly as oxygen levels fell. Predation of C. pseudogracilis by a resident amphipod Gammarus pulex followed a similar pattern but was much less severe and A. aquaticus appeared resistant to G. pulex predation. Mesocosm experiments showed that C. pseudogracilis survivorship in the presence of D. villosus increased when dense vegetation was present compared to bare substrate. Survivorship of A. aquaticus was uniformly poor in all habitats. Taxa with high environmental tolerance and adaptability may be resistant to this invader’s worst impacts.
KeywordsAmphipod Asellus Coexistence Crangonyx Dikerogammarus Exclusion Gammarus Supertramp
Thanks to Fiona MacNeil and Carl Haynes of Summerfield Farm campsite for use of all facilities and cold rooms. Thanks to the Government Laboratory, Isle of Man. Thanks also to Nina Birkby of the Environment Agency of England and Wales and Mark Briffa of the University of Plymouth. Thanks to Katya Kovalenko and referees whose comments improved this manuscript.
- Arbačiauskas, K., V. Semenchenko, M. Grabowski, R. S. E. W. Leuven, M. Paunovic, M. O. Son, B. Csanyi, S. Gumuliauskaite, A. Konopacka, S. Nehring, G. van der Velde, V. Vezhnovetz & V. E. Panov, 2008. Assessment of biocontamination of benthic macroinvertebrate communities in European inland waterways. Aquatic Invasions 3: 211–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Carlsson, R., 2000. The distribution of the gastropods Theodoxus fluviatilis (L.) and Potamopyrgus antipodarum (Gray) in lakes on the Ǻland Islands, southwestern Finland. Boreal Environmental Research 5: 187–195.Google Scholar
- Colinvaux, P., 1986. Ecology. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
- Fowler, J., L. Cohen & P. Jarvis, 2008. Practical Statistics for Field Biology, 2nd ed. Wiley, England.Google Scholar
- GBNNSS, 2017. GB non-native species secretariat species alerts. http://www.nonnativespecies.org/alerts/index.cfm.
- Gledhill, T., D. W. Sutcliffe & W. D. Williams, 1993. British Freshwater Crustacea Malacostraca: a Key with Ecological Notes. Freshwater Biological Association Scientific Publications No. 52. Freshwater Biological Association, Ambleside.Google Scholar
- Hynes, H. B. N., 1960. The Biology of Polluted Waters. Liverpool University Press, Liverpool.Google Scholar
- MacNeil, C. & D. Platvoet, 2013. Factors influencing the macro- and micro-distribution of Dikerogammarus villosus (Crustacea: Amphipoda) within an invaded river system; could artificial structures such as fish passes facilitate the establishment and spread of the ‘killer shrimp’? Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 23: 667–677.Google Scholar
- MacNeil, C., J. Prenter, M. Briffa, N. J. Fielding, J. T. A. Dick, G. E. Riddell, M. J. Hatcher & A. M. Dunn, 2004. The replacement of a native freshwater amphipod by an invader: roles for environmental degradation and intraguild predation. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 61: 1627–1635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- MacNeil, C., J. T. A. Dick, D. Platvoet & M. Briffa, 2011. Direct and indirect effects of species displacements; the invading amphipod crustacean Dikerogammarus villosus can disrupt aquatic ecosystem energy flow and function. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 30: 38–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Madgwick, G. & D. C. Aldridge, 2011. Killer shrimps in Britain: hype or horror? The facts about our latest invasive animal. British Wildlife 22: 408–412.Google Scholar
- Marcus, A. & K. Grabow, 2008. Das Risiko der Verschleppung neozoischer Amphipods beim Überlandtransport von Yachten. Risk of spreading of non-indigenous Amphipoda due to overland transport of recreation boats. Lauterbornia 62: 41–44.Google Scholar
- Pinkster, S., M. Scheepmaker, D. Platvoet & N. Broodbaker, 1992. Drastic changes in the amphipod fauna (Crustacea) of Dutch inland waters during the last 25 years. Bijdragen tot de Dierkunde 61: 193–204.Google Scholar
- Sykes, J. M., A. M. J. Lane & D. G. George, 1999. The United Kingdom Environmental Change Network: Protocols for Standard Measurements at Freshwater Sites. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology. Natural Environment Research Council, Huntingdon, Cambs.Google Scholar