Marine Biology

, Volume 160, Issue 4, pp 793–804 | Cite as

Estimating digestion time in gelatinous predators: a methodological comparison with the scyphomedusa Aurelia aurita

  • Tania FitzGeorge-Balfour
  • Andrew G. Hirst
  • Cathy H. Lucas
  • Jamie Craggs
  • Emma J. Whelan
  • Shorok Mombrikotb
Original Paper

Abstract

In order to quantify the trophic impact of gelatinous predators, digestion time estimates are commonly applied to counts of prey in the guts. Three primary approaches are used, the Manual-feeding, Natural-feeding and Steady-state methods; these differ in methodology and their underlying assumptions. The criteria used to define the end-point of digestion, and the resolution at which digestion progress is observed, also vary across studies. To understand the impact of such differences, we estimate digestion times of the scyphomedusa Aurelia aurita fed adult females of the copepod Acartia tonsa using these various approaches. We find ~fourfold differences which can be attributed to bias towards the slowest rates of digestion by some end-point criteria, and overestimation from low observation resolution. Artificial manipulation and the degree to which swimming and feeding behaviour are natural may also influence estimates. We provide recommendations for those quantifying digestion times of Aurelia aurita medusae and gelatinous predators.

Supplementary material

227_2012_2134_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (195 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 195 kb)

References

  1. Arai MN (1996) A functional biology of Scyphozoa. Chapman and Hall, London, p 300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baars MA, Helling GR (1985) Methodical problems in the measurement of phytoplankton ingestion rate by gut fluorescence. Hydro Bull 19:81–88Google Scholar
  3. Båmstedt U, Martinussen MB (2000) Estimating digestion rate and the problem of individual variability, exemplified by a scyphozoan jellyfish. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 251:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Costello JH, Colin SP (2002) Prey resource use by coexistent hydromedusae from Friday Harbor, Washington. Limnol Oceanogr 47:934–942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dawson MN, Jacobs DK (2001) Molecular Evidence for Cryptic Species of Aurelia aurita (Cnidaria, Scyphozoa). Biol Bull 200:92–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dawson MN, Martin LE (2001) Geographic variation and ecological adaptation in Aurelia (Scyphozoa, Semaeostomeae): some implications from molecular phylogenetics. Hydrobiologia 451:259–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Decker MB, Breitburg DL, Purcell JE (2004) Effects of low dissolved oxygen on zooplankton predation by the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 280:163–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Guillard RRL (1975) Culture of phytoplankton for feeding marine invertebrates. In: Smith WL, Chanley MH (eds) Culture of Marine Invertebrate Animals. Plenum Press, New York, pp 26–60Google Scholar
  9. Hansson LJ (2006) A method for in situ estimation of prey selectivity and predation rate in large plankton, exemplified with the jellyfish Aurelia aurita (L). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 328:113–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hyslop EJ (1980) Stomach content analysis—a review of methods and their application. J Fish Biol 17:411–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ishii H, Tanaka F (2001) Food and feeding of Aurelia aurita in Tokyo Bay with an analysis of stomach contents and a measurement of digestion times. Hydrobiologia 451:311–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Larson RJ (1987) Daily ration and predation by medusae and ctenophores in Saanich Inlet, B.C. Canada. Neth J Sea Res 21:35–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Larson RJ (1991) Diet, prey selection and daily ration of Stomolophus meleagris, a filter-feeding scyphomedusa from the NE Gulf of Mexico. Est Coast Shelf Sci 32:511–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lo WT, Chen IL (2008) Population succession and feeding of scyphomedusae, Aurelia aurita, in a eutrophic tropical lagoon in Taiwan. Est Coast Shelf Sci 76:227–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Martinussen MB, Båmstedt U (1995) Diet, estimated daily food ration and predator impact by the scyphozoan jellyfishes Aurelia aurita and Cyanea capillata. In: Skjoldal HR, Hopkins C, Erikstad KE, Leinaas HP (eds) Ecology of fjords and coastal waters. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 127–145Google Scholar
  16. Martinussen MB, Båmstedt U (1999) Nutritional ecology of gelatinous planktonic predators. Digestion rate in relation to type and amount of prey. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 232:61–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Martinussen MB, Båmstedt U (2001) Digestion rate in relation to temperature of two gelatinous planktonic predators. Sarsia 86:21–35Google Scholar
  18. Matsakis S, Conover RJ (1991) Abundance and feeding of medusae and their potential impact as predators on other zooplankton in Bedford Basin (Nova Scotia, Canada) during Spring. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 48:1419–1430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mayer AG (1910) Medusae of the World, III: the Scyphomedusae. Carnegie institution, Washington, p 735Google Scholar
  20. Penry DL, Frost BW (1990) Re-evaluation of the gut-fullness (gut fluorescence) method for inferring ingestion rates of suspension-feeding copepods. Limnol Oceanogr 35:1207–1214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Purcell JE (1983) Digestion rates and assimilation efficiencies of siphonophores fed zooplankton prey. Mar Biol 73:257–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Purcell JE (1992) Effects of predation by the scyphomedusan Chrysaora quinquecirrha on zooplankton populations in Chesapeake Bay. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 87:65–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Purcell JE (2003) Predation on zooplankton by large jellyfish, Aurelia labiata, Cyanea capillata and Aequorea aequorea, in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 246:137–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Purcell JE (2009) Extension of methods for jellyfish and ctenophore trophic ecology to large-scale research. Hydrobiologia 616:23–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Purcell JE, Cresswell FP, Cargo DG, Kennedy VS (1991) Differential ingestion and digestion of Bivalve Larvae by the Scyphozoan Chrysaora quinquecirrha and the Ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi. Biol Bull 180:103–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Purcell JE, Fuentes V, Atienza D, Tilves U, Astorga D, Kawahara M, Hays G (2010) Use of respiration rates of scyphozoan jellyfish to estimate their effects on the food web. Hydrobiologia 645:135–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Riisgård HU, Madsen CV (2011) Clearance rates of ephyrae and small medusae of the common jellyfish Aurelia aurita offered different types of prey. J Sea Res 65:51–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Suchman CL, Sullivan BK (2000) Effect of prey size on vulnerability of copepods to predation by the scyphomedusae Aurelia aurita and Cyanea sp. J Plankton Res 22:2289–2306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Suchman CL, Daly EA, Keister JE, Peterson WT, Brodeur RD (2008) Feeding patterns and predation potential of scyphomedusae in a highly productive upwelling region. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 358:161–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sullivan BK, Garcia JR, Klein-MacPhee G (1994) Prey selection by the scyphomedusan predator Aurelia aurita. Mar Biol 121:335–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sullivan BK, Suchman CL, Costello JH (1997) Mechanics of prey selection by ephyrae of the scyphomedusa Aurelia aurita. Mar Biol 130:213–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Uye S-I, Shimauchi M (2005) Population biomass, feeding, respiration and growth rates, and carbon budget of the scyphomedusa Aurelia aurita in the Inland Sea of Japan. J Plankton Res 27:237–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tania FitzGeorge-Balfour
    • 1
  • Andrew G. Hirst
    • 1
  • Cathy H. Lucas
    • 2
  • Jamie Craggs
    • 3
  • Emma J. Whelan
    • 2
  • Shorok Mombrikotb
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Biological and Chemical SciencesQueen Mary University of LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.National Oceanography Centre, School of Ocean and Earth ScienceUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK
  3. 3.Horniman Museum and AquariumLondonUK

Personalised recommendations