, Volume 35, Issue 10, pp 1314–1315 | Cite as

Starfish encounters: An experimental study of its advantages

  • N. A. Sloan


The predatory starfishCrossaster papposus exploits a chemically mediated escape response in another predatory starfishAsteria rubens when a common food resource is available to both species. Intraspecific avoidance amongC. papposus is strong and functions in dispersal. Responses to inter- and intraspecific encounters among starfish may be important to the predatory ecology of species in high positions in their food webs.


Experimental Study Food Resource High Position Escape Response Common Food 
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.


  1. 1.
    K.P. Mauzey, C. Birkeland and P.K. Dayton, Ecology49, 603 (1968).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    C. Birkeland, Ecol. Monogr.44, 211 (1974).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    T. Mortensen, Handbook of the Echinoderms of the British Isles. Oxford Univ. Press, 1927.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    H.M. Feder and A.M. Christensen, in: Physiology of Echinodermata. Ed. R.A. Boolootian. Wiley Interscience, New York 1966.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    D.A. Hancock, Ophelia13, 1 (1974).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    D.A. Hancock, J. mar. Biol. Ass. U.K.37, 565 (1958).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J.C. Castilla and D.J. Crisp, J. mar. Biol. Ass. U.K.50, 829 (1970).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    P. Mayo and A.M. Mackie, Mar. Biol.38, 41 (1976).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    W.C. McIntosh, Proc. R. phys. Soc. Edinb.16, 75 (1907).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    E. Forbes, A history of British Starfishes. London 1841.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    D.R. Wobber, Biol. Bull.148, 483 (1975).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    P.K. Dayton, R.J. Rosenthal, L.C. Mahen and T. Antezana, Mar. Biol.39, 361 (1977).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    L. Fishelson, Mar. Biol.10, 113 (1971).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J.B. Wilson, N.A. Holme and R.L. Bassett, J. mar. Biol. Ass. U.K.57, 405 (1977).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    C.P.M. Khamala, Mar. Biol.11, 167 (1971).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    H. Grünbaum, G. Bergman, D.P. Abbott and J.C. Ogden, Bull. mar. Sci.28, 181 (1978).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    E.S. Reese, in: Physiology of Echinodermata. Ed. R.A. Boolootian. Wiley Interscience, New York 1966.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    G.F. Warner, in: Biology and Systematics of Colonial Organisms. Ed. G.P. Larwood and B. Rosen. Systematics Association, London 1979.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    A.W. Simpson, J.D. Thomas and C.R. Townsend, Behav. Biol.9, 731 (1973).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    N.A. Sloan, Thesis, University of London, 1977.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    P. Mayo, Thesis, University of Aberdeen, 1974.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    D.A. Hancock, J. mar. Biol. Ass. U.K.34, 313 (1955).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    J.L. Menge and B.A. Menge, Ecol. Monogr.44, 189 (1974).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Birkhäuser Verlag 1979

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. A. Sloan
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Zoology and Comparative Physiology, Queen Mary CollegeUniversity of LondonLondonEngland

Personalised recommendations