Marine Biology

, Volume 77, Issue 3, pp 279–285 | Cite as

Functional morphology and feeding behavior of Scolelepis squamata (Polychaeta: Spionidae)

  • D. M. Dauer


Functional morphology and feeding behavior of Scolelepis squamata (Müller) were studied. Gut contents consisted of unconsolidated sedimentary particles, fecal pellets of other species, and a wide variety of embryos, larvae, and juveniles. Unlike other spionid polychaetes the palps of S. squamata lack a median, ciliated groove. Particles captured by the palps were brought to the pharynx by a complete contraction of the palp. In the presence of a current, S. squamata helically coiled their palps, and fed almost exclusively on suspended and resuspended particles. In contrast to most spionid polychaetes the palps of S. squamata are not deciduous. Various aspects of the morphology and feeding behavior of S. squamata are discussed in terms of their functional and ecological significance.


Feeding Behavior Polychaete Fecal Pellet Sedimentary Particle Ecological Significance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature cited

  1. Aller, R. C.: Relationships of tube-dwelling benthos with sediment and overlying water chemistry, pp 285–308. In: Marine benthic dynamics. Ed. by K. R. Tenore and B. C. Coull. Columbia: Univ. of South Carolina Press, 1980Google Scholar
  2. Amoureux, L.: Étude bionomique et écologique de quelques annélides polychetes des sables intertidaux des côtes ouest de la France. Arch. Zool. exp. gén. 107, 1–218 (1967)Google Scholar
  3. Bell, S. S. and B. C. Coull: Field evidence that shrimp predation regulates meiofauna. Oecologia 35, 141–148 (1978)Google Scholar
  4. Bell, S. S. and B. C. Coull: Experimental evidence for a model of juvenile macrofauna-meiofauna interactions, pp 179–192, In: Marine benthic dynamics, Ed. by K. R. Tenore and B. C. Coull. Columbia: Univ. of South Carolina Press 1980Google Scholar
  5. Brenchley, G. A.: Disturbance and community structure: an experimental study of bioturbation in marine soft-bottom environments. J. mar. Res. 39, 767–790 (1981)Google Scholar
  6. Buzas, M. A.: Foraminifera as prey for benthic deposit feeders: results of predator exclusion experiments. J. mar. Res. 36, 617–625 (1978)Google Scholar
  7. Croker, R. A.: Macro-infauna of northern New England marine sand: long-term intertidal community structure, pp 439–450. In: Ecology of marine benthos. Ed. by B. C. Coull. Columbia: Univ. of South Carolina Press 1979Google Scholar
  8. Dauer, D. M.: Functional morphology and feeding behavior of spionid polychaetes. Am. Zool. 19, 905 (1979)Google Scholar
  9. Dauer, D. M.: Population dynamics of the polychaetous annelids of an intertidal habitat in upper Old Tampa Bay, Florida. Int. Revue ges. Hydrobiol. 65, 461–487 (1980)Google Scholar
  10. Dauer, D. M., R. M. Ewing, J. W. Sourbeer, W. T. Harlan and T. L. Stokes, Jr.: Nocturnal movements of the macrobenthos of the Lafayette River, Virginia. Int. Revue ges. Hydrobiol. 67, 761–775 (1982a)Google Scholar
  11. Dauer, D. M., C. A. Maybury and R. M. Ewing: Feeding behavior and general ecology of several spionid polychaetes from the Chesapeake Bay. J. exp. mar. Biol. Ecol. 54, 21–38 (1981)Google Scholar
  12. Dauer, D. M., G. H. Tourtellotte and R. M. Ewing: Oyster shells and artificial worm tubes: the role of refuges in structuring benthic communities of the lower Chesapeake Bay. Int. Revue ges. Hydrobiol. 67, 661–677 (1982b)Google Scholar
  13. Day, J. H.: A monograph on the Polychaeta of Southern Africa. Part 2. Sedentaria, pp 460–461. London: The British Museum 1967Google Scholar
  14. Dexter, D. H.: Structure of an intertidal sandy-beach community in North Carolina. Chesapeake Sci. 10, 93–98 (1969)Google Scholar
  15. Fauchald, K. and P. A. Jumars: The diet of worms: a study of polychaete feeding guilds. Oceanogr. mar. Biol. Ann. Rev. 17, 191–284 (1979)Google Scholar
  16. Foster, N. M.: Spionidae (Polychaeta) of the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea. Stud. Fauna Curacao Carib. Islands 36, 1–183 (1971)Google Scholar
  17. Joyner, A.: Reproduction and larval life of Nerine cirratulus (Delle Chiaje) Family Spionidae. Proc. Zool. Soc. London 138, 655–666 (1962)Google Scholar
  18. Lehman, J. T.: The filter-feeder as an optimal forager, and the predicted shapes of feeding curves. Limnol. Oceanogr. 21, 501–516 (1976)Google Scholar
  19. Light, W. J.: Spionidae. Invertebrates of the San Francisco Bay estuary system, 211 pp. Ed. W. L. Lee. Pacific Groove, California: Boxwood Press 1978Google Scholar
  20. Lindroth, A.: Atmungsventilation der Polychäten. Z. vgl. Physiol. 28, 485–532 (1941)Google Scholar
  21. Matta, J. F.: Beach Fauna study of the CERC field research facility, Duck, North Carolina. U.S. Coastal Engineering Research Center, Misc. Report No. 77-6, 102 pp. 1977Google Scholar
  22. Pearse, A. S., H. J. Humm and G. W. Wharton: Ecology of sand beaches at Beaufort, N. C. Ecol. Monogr. 12, 136–190 (1942)Google Scholar
  23. Pettibone, M. H.: Marine polychaete worms of the New England Region. U.S. National Mus. Bull. 227, 356 pp., U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, D. C. 1963Google Scholar
  24. Rhoads, D. C. and D. K. Young: The influence of deposit-feeding organisms on sediment stability and community trophic structure. J. mar. Res. 28, 150–178 (1970)Google Scholar
  25. Schroeder, P. C. and C. O. Hermans: Annelida: Polychaeta, pp 1–213, In: Reproduction of marine invertebrates, Vol. III, Annelids and Echiurans. Ed. by A. C. Giese and J. S. Pearse. New York: Academic Press 1975Google Scholar
  26. Self, R. F. L. and P. A. Jumars: New resource axes for deposit feeders? J. mar. Res. 36, 627–641 (1978)Google Scholar
  27. Taghon, G. L.: Optimal foraging by deposit-feeding invertebrates: roles of particle size and organic coating. Oecologia 52, 295–304 (1982)Google Scholar
  28. Taghon, G. L., A. R. M. Nowell and P. A. Jumars: Induction of suspension feeding in spionid polychaetes by high particulate fluxes. Science, N.Y. 210, 562–564 (1980)Google Scholar
  29. Taghon, G. L., R. F. L. Self and P. A. Jumars: Predicting particle selection by deposit feeders: a model and its implications. Limnol. Oceanogr. 23, 752–759 (1978)Google Scholar
  30. Thistle, D.: Deep-sea harpacticoid copepod diversity maintenance: the role of polychaetes. Mar. Biol. 52, 371–376 (1979)Google Scholar
  31. Wilson, Jr., W. H.: A laboratory investigation of the effect of a terebellid polychaete on the survivorship of nereid polychaete larvae. J. exp. mar. Biol. Ecol. 46, 73–80 (1980)Google Scholar
  32. Wolff, W. J.: The estuary as a habitat. An analysis of data on the soft-bottom macrofauna of the estuarine area of the rivers Rhine, Meuse, and Schelot. Zool. Verh. Rijksmus. nat. Hist. Leiden 126, 1–242 (1973)Google Scholar
  33. Woodin, S. A.: Adult-larval interactions in dense infaunal assemblages: patterns of abundance. J. mar. Res. 34, 25–41 (1976)Google Scholar
  34. Woodin, S. A.: Browsing: important in marine sedimentary environments? Spionid polychaete examples. J. exp. mar. Biol. Ecol. 60, 35–45 (1982)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. M. Dauer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesOld Dominion UniversityNorfolkUSA

Personalised recommendations