Skip to main content
Log in

Intragonadal incubation of progeny in three viviparous asterinid sea stars that differ in offspring provisioning, lecithotrophy vs matrotrophy

  • Original paper
  • Published:
Marine Biology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In marine invertebrates that care for their young, the number of offspring is often correlated with adult size. The number, size, and mass of progeny relative to parent size were investigated in three asterinid sea star species that incubate their young in the gonads. Cryptasterina hystera has intragonadal planktonic-type lecithotrophic larvae with development supported by large eggs (440-µm diameter) and the juveniles are similar in size (655-µm diameter; coefficient of variation, CV = 6.89%). By contrast, Parvulastra vivipara and P. parvivipara have small vestigial larvae and small eggs (135–150-µm diameter) with offspring development supported by sibling cannibalism (matrotrophy). The juveniles in the gonads vary in size (500–5000-µm diameter, CV = 63.87 and 53.27%, respectively). All three species show a positive relationship between parent size and the number and size of juveniles. The allometry of brooding hypothesis that the number of progeny that can be cared for is (paradoxically) constrained in large adults due to space limitation was tested. In all species, the number of progeny increased with adult size, indicating that there are no allometric constraints on offspring incubation. To compare parental investment across the two modes of provisioning, the juvenile weight of C. hystera was used as a pro rata progeny unit. The matrotrophs had a higher reproductive output than similarly sized C. hystera. Of the hypotheses proposed to explain the evolution of parental care in marine invertebrates, none are broadly applicable to the viviparous asterinids because of the marked differences in their reproductive strategies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors express their gratitude to Liz McTaggart, Senior Natural Resources Officer, Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, South Australia for assistance in sample collection and to Mr. Geoff Prestedge for assistance with samples in Tasmania. We also like to thank Dr. Christopher Friesen and Dr. Mathew Crowther from the University of Sydney for assisting in data analyses.

Funding

The research was supported by a grant from the Australian Research Council (MB). MSRK was supported by a University Sydney International Scholarship (SC0853).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohammad S. R. Khan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical statement

As the study organisms were echinoderms, ethical approval was not required. We collected P. parvivipara samples from South Australia on the basis of ministerial exemption ME9902902.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: J. Grassle.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Reviewed by J. Hodin and A. N. Ostrovsky.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 245 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (PDF 18 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Khan, M.S.R., Whittington, C.M., Thompson, M.B. et al. Intragonadal incubation of progeny in three viviparous asterinid sea stars that differ in offspring provisioning, lecithotrophy vs matrotrophy. Mar Biol 166, 81 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-019-3507-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-019-3507-3

Navigation