Marine Biology

, Volume 146, Issue 2, pp 301–313 | Cite as

Habitat use by sponge-dwelling brittlestars

Research Article

Abstract

Cryptic organisms often associate with sessile invertebrates for refuge in space-limited environments. To examine interspecific habitat associations on coral reefs, tube- and vase-shaped sponges were surveyed for associated brittlestars at six sites on the coral reefs off Key Largo, Florida. Of 179 sponges encountered, Callyspongia vaginalis was the most abundant (43.0%), followed by Niphates digitalis (39.7%), and Callyspongia plicifera (4.5%). Three of eight sponge species surveyed did not differ from C. vaginalis in two physical refuge characteristics: oscular diameter and inner tube surface area. Brittlestars (416 total), all of the genus Ophiothrix, were only found in C. vaginalis, N. digitalis, and C. plicifera. The most abundant brittlestar, O. lineata (326), occurred on C. vaginalis (99.0%) and N. digitalis (1.0%), while O. suensonii (67) occurred on C. vaginalis (79.1%), N. digitalis (19.4%), and C. plicifera (1.5%). There was no pattern of co-occurrence of O. lineata and O. suensonii on C. vaginalis. The abundance of O. lineata increased with surface area of C. vaginalis. Differential habitat use was observed in O. lineata, with small individuals (<5 mm disk diameter) located inside and on the surface of sponge tubes and large individuals (≥5 mm) solely inside tubes. The number of large O. lineata in C. vaginalis never exceeded the number of tubes per sponge, and tagged O. lineata remained in the same sponge for at least 3 weeks. In density manipulations, no pattern of intraspecific competition among large O. lineata was observed; however, there was evidence for interaction between size-classes. Brittlestars selected live sponge habitat over a non-living refuge, suggesting a mechanism for sponge habitat recognition. Sponge-dwelling brittle stars prefer some tube- and vase-shaped sponge species despite similar oscular diameters and surface areas. Surprisingly, these preferred sponge species are known from previous studies to be chemically undefended against generalist fish predators; therefore, brittlestars that inhabit these sponges do not gain an associational chemical defense. Sponge habitat use by O. lineata may be governed by intraspecific interactions to maintain habitat and access to food. While past studies have suggested that O. lineata is an obligate sponge commensal, the present study suggests that O. lineata has a species-specific association with the tube-sponge C. vaginalis.

References

  1. Aronson R (1988) Palatability of five Caribbean ophiuroids. Bull Mar Sci 43:93–97Google Scholar
  2. Beck MW (1995) Size specific shelter limitation in stone crabs: a test of the demographic bottleneck hypothesis. Ecology 76:968–980Google Scholar
  3. Caddy JF (1986) Modeling stock-recruitment processes in Crustacea: some practical and theoretical perspectives. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 43:2330–2344Google Scholar
  4. Caddy JF, Stamatopoulos C (1990) Mapping growth and mortality rates of crevice dwelling organisms onto a perforated surface: the relevance of ‘cover’ to the carrying capacity of natural and artificial habitats. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 31:87–106Google Scholar
  5. Clark AH (1939) Echinoderms of the Smithsonian–Hartford Expedition, 1937, with other West Indian records. Proc US Natl Mus 86:441–56Google Scholar
  6. Clark HL (1933) A handbook of the littoral echinoderms of Puerto Rico and the other West Indian islands. Sci Surv Puerto Rico Virgin Is NY Acad Sci 16:1–147Google Scholar
  7. Cronin G, Hay ME, Fenical W, Lindquist N (1995) Distribution, density, and sequestration of host chemical defenses by the specialist nudibranch Tritonia hamnerorum found at high densities on the sea fan Gorgonia ventalina. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 119:177–189Google Scholar
  8. Devaney D (1974) Shallow water echinoderms from British Honduras, with a description of new species of Ophiocoma (Ophiuroidea). Bull Mar Sci 24:122–124Google Scholar
  9. Duarte LF, Nalesso C (1996) The sponge Zygomycale parishii (Bowerbank) and its endobiotic fauna. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 42:139–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duffy JE (1992) Host use patterns and demography in a guild of tropical sponge dwelling shrimps. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 90:127–138Google Scholar
  11. Duffy JE (1996) Species boundaries, specialization, and the radiation of sponge-dwelling alpheid shrimp. Biol J Linn Soc 58:307–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Duffy JE, Hay ME (1994) Herbivore resistance to seaweed chemical defense: the roles of mobility and predation risk. Ecology 75:1304–1319Google Scholar
  13. Edgar GJ (1983) The ecology of south-east Tasmanian phytal communities. IV. Factors affecting the distribution of amphithoid amphipods among algae. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 70:181–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eggleston D, Lipcius R, Miller D, Coba-Cetina L (1990) Shelter scaling regulates survival of juvenile Caribbean spiny lobster Panulirus argus. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 62:79–88Google Scholar
  15. Fedra K, Olscher EM, Scherubel C, Stachowitsch M, Wurzian RS (1976) On the ecology of the North Adriatic benthic community: distribution, standing crop, and composition of the macrobenthos. Mar Biol 38:129–145Google Scholar
  16. Fretwell SD, Lucas Jr HL (1970) On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. I. Theoretical development. Acta Biotechnol 19:16–36Google Scholar
  17. Gause GF (1934) The struggle for existence. Hafner, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Gerrodette T, Flechsig AO (1979) Sediment-induced reduction in the pumping rate of the tropical sponge Verongia lacunosa. Mar Biol 55:103–110Google Scholar
  19. Hacker S, Steneck R (1990) Habitat architecture and the abundance and body-size-dependent habitat selection of a phytal amphipod. Ecology 71:2269–2285Google Scholar
  20. Hay ME (1991) Marine–terrestrial contrasts in the ecology of plant chemical defenses against herbivores. Trends Ecol Evol 6:57–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hay ME, Duffy JE, Pfister CA, Fenical W (1987) Chemical defense against different marine herbivores: are amphipods insect equivalents? Ecology 68:1567–1580Google Scholar
  22. Heck Jr KL, Wetstone GS (1977) Habitat complexity and invertebrate species richness and abundance in tropical seagrass meadows. J Biogeogr 4:135–142Google Scholar
  23. Hendler G (1984) The association of Ophiothrix lineata and Callyspongia vaginalis: a brittlestar–sponge cleaning symbiosis? Mar Ecol 5:9–27Google Scholar
  24. Hendler G, Miller JE, Pawson DL, Kier PM (1995) Sea stars, sea urchins, and allies: echinoderms of Florida and the Caribbean. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C., USAGoogle Scholar
  25. Holbrook SJ (1979) Habitat utilization, competitive interactions, and coexistence of three species of cricetine rodents in east-central Arizona. Ecology 60:758–769Google Scholar
  26. Holmes RT, Bonney Jr RE, Pacala SW (1979) Guild structure of the Hubbard Brook bird community: a multivariate approach. Ecology 60:512–520Google Scholar
  27. Huffaker CB (1958) Experimental studies on predation: dispersion factors and predator–prey oscillations. Hilgardia 27:343–383Google Scholar
  28. Kissling D, Taylor G (1977) Habitat factors for reef dwelling ophiuroids in the Florida Keys. In: Taylor DL (ed) Proc 3rd Int Coral Reef Symp, vol 1. University of Miami, Miami, Fla., pp 225–231Google Scholar
  29. MacArthur RH (1958) Population ecology of some warblers of northeastern coniferous forests. Ecology 39:599–619Google Scholar
  30. McGovern T (2002) Sex-ratio bias and clonal reproduction in the brittle star Ophiactis savignyi. Evolution 56:511–517PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Pawlik JR (1983) A sponge-eating worm from Bermuda: Branchiosyllis oculata (Polychaeta, Syllidae). Mar Ecol 4:65–79Google Scholar
  32. Pawlik JR (1997) Fish predation on Caribbean reef sponges: an emerging perspective of chemical defenses. In: Lessios HA, MacIntyre IG (eds) Proc 8th Int Coral Reef Symp, vol 2. Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Balboa, Panama, pp 1255–1258Google Scholar
  33. Pawlik JR, Chanas B, Toonen RJ, Fenical W (1995) Defenses of Caribbean sponges against predatory reef fish. I. Chemical deterrency. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 127:183–194Google Scholar
  34. Pearse AS (1950) Notes on the inhabitants of certain sponges at Bimini. Ecology 31:150–151Google Scholar
  35. Randall JE (1963) An analysis of the fish populations of artificial reefs in the Virgin Islands. Caribb J Sci 3:31–47Google Scholar
  36. Randall JE (1967) Food habits of reef fishes of the West Indies. Stud Trop Oceanogr 5:665–847Google Scholar
  37. Randall JE, Hartman WD (1968) Food habits of reef fishes of the West Indies. Mar Biol 1:216–225Google Scholar
  38. Roughgarden J (1975) Evolution of marine symbiosis—a simple cost–benefit model. Ecology 56:1201–1208Google Scholar
  39. Rützler K (1976) Ecology of Tunisian commercial sponges. Tethys 7:249–264Google Scholar
  40. Sale PF (1975) Patterns of use of space in a guild of territorial fishes. Mar Biol 29:89–97Google Scholar
  41. Schoppe S (1996) Ophiothrix synoecina: new species (Echinodermata: Ophiuroidea) from the Caribbean coast of Columbia. Bull Mar Sci 58:429–437Google Scholar
  42. Sloan NA (1982) Size and structure of echinoderm populations associated with different coexisting coral species at Aldabra Atoll, Seychelles. Mar Biol 66:67–75Google Scholar
  43. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1981) Biometry, 2nd edn. Freeman, San Francisco, Calif., USAGoogle Scholar
  44. Stinson CSA, Brown VK (1983) Seasonal changes in the architecture of natural plant communities and its relevance to insect herbivores. Oecologia (Berl) 56:67–69Google Scholar
  45. Targett NM, Schmahl GP (1984) Chemical ecology and distribution of sponges in the Salt River Canyon, St. Croix, U.S.V.I. NOAA Tech Mem OAR NURP-1Google Scholar
  46. Turon X, Codina M, Tarjuelo I, Uriz MJ, Becerro MA (2000) Mass recruitment of Ophiothrix fragilis (Ophiuroidea) on sponges: settlement patterns and post-settlement dynamics. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 200:201–212Google Scholar
  47. Tyler JC, Böhlke JE (1972) Records of sponge-dwelling fishes, primarily of the Caribbean. Bull Mar Sci 22:601–642Google Scholar
  48. Westinga E, Hoetjes PC (1981) The intrasponge fauna of Spheciospongia vesparia (Porifera: Desmospongiae) at Curacao and Bonaire. Mar Biol 62:139–150Google Scholar
  49. Zar JH (1984) Biostatistical analysis, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., USAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Marine ScienceUniversity of North Carolina at WilmingtonWilmingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations