Biological Invasions

, Volume 9, Issue 6, pp 645–655 | Cite as

Invasive species as a new food source: does a nudibranch predator prefer eating an invasive bryozoan?

Original Paper

Abstract

Membranipora membranacea is an invasive bryozoan that was first found in the Gulf of Maine in 1987 and within two years became the dominant organism living on kelps. Membranipora may have become dominant so quickly because it had little competition in a relatively unoccupied niche; however, lack of predation has also probably played a major role. Where Membranipora is native, there is usually a specialist nudibranch predator that keeps the population in check. For example, in European populations, the nudibranch Polycera quadrilineata prefers Membranipora while Onchidoris muricata is known to prefer another bryozoan, Electra pilosa. Electra, Membranipora, and Onchidoris are all now found in the Gulf of Maine while Polycera is not. We tested whether Onchidoris would (1) eat Membranipora at all, (2) eat Membranipora and Electra at different rates, and (3) show a preference for eating Membranipora or Electra when given a choice. We found that Onchidoris does eat Membranipora, and it generally eats Membranipora faster than Electra. However, when given a choice, Onchidoris prefers Electra. Onchidoris typically reproduces in the spring and grows over the fall and winter, but has recently been found reproducing in the winter in New Hampshire. Although it does not survive the winter as well as Electra, Membranipora is the dominant organism living on many macroalgae in the late summer and fall. Thus, the large Membranipora food source now available in the summer and fall may allow Onchidoris to reproduce earlier.

Keywords

Bryozoan Electra pilosa Invasive species Membranipora membranacea Nudibranch Onchidoris muricata Predation 

Introduction

While not all non-native species cause harm (Bruno et al. 2005), some of those that establish and spread have the potential to severely alter native community structure and function (e.g. Byers 2000; Grosholz et al. 2000). Invasive species can cause native species to change their resource utilization patterns (Morgan et al. 1978; Race 1982; Brenchley and Carlton 1983) and cause direct or indirect changes in food webs (Zaret and Paine 1973; Herbold and Moyle 1986). Some invasive species can even cause extinctions of native species (Clarke et al. 1984; but see Gurevitch and Padilla 2004). While many invasive species may not have such severe effects on a community, they can facilitate establishment of additional non-native species resulting in an “invasion meltdown” (Simberloff and Von Holle 1999).

The bryozoan Membranipora membranacea (hereafter Membranipora) was first noticed encrusting laminarian kelps in the Gulf of Maine in 1987 at the Isle of Shoals (Lambert 1990; Berman et al. 1992). Within a few years, Membranipora became the dominant organism living on laminarian kelps, growing over other epibionts like Electra pilosa (hereafter Electra), which is another encrusting bryozoan, and Obelia geniculata, a hydroid (Berman et al. 1992).

The evidence so far suggests that Membranipora has negative effects on its kelp hosts. Membranipora can increase the likelihood of kelp breakage by making the kelp blades more brittle and susceptible to wave damage (Dixon et al. 1981; Lambert et al. 1992; Scheibling et al. 1999), or by concentrating snail herbivory in bare blade areas (Chavanich and Harris 2000). Encrustations of bryozoans can decrease kelp growth by interfering with light absorption for photosynthesis (Wing and Clendenning 1971; Oswald et al. 1984; Cancino et al. 1987; Muñoz et al. 1991) and creating a barrier against nutrient uptake and gas exchange (Hurd et al. 1994; Hurd et al. 2000). Membranipora encrustations can also decrease kelp reproduction by reducing spore release (Saier and Chapman 2004). Healthy kelp forests prevent other canopy seaweeds from recruiting, but outbreaks of Membranipora that cause substantial losses in the kelp canopy allow the invasive green seaweed Codium fragile ssp. tomentosoides to recruit and prevent the kelps from recovering (Scheibling 2000; Levin et al. 2002; Sumi and Scheibling 2005). As a result, substantial areas of the rocky subtidal along the Atlantic coast of Nova Scotia and the Gulf of Maine have shifted from kelp dominance to C. fragile ssp. tomentosoides dominance (Harris and Tyrrell 2001; Levin et al. 2002; Mathieson et al. 2003; Theriault 2003).

While most of the research on Membranipora in the Gulf of Maine has focused on the invasive bryozoan’s negative effects on other species, little work has been done on how this species was able to spread so quickly once it became established. In general, invasive species can spread quickly once they are established because they are often better competitors for resources (Race 1982; Brenchley and Carlton 1983; Vermeij 1991; Byers 2000), have faster growth rates (Hockey and Schurink 1992; Byers 2000; Stachowicz et al. 2002), take advantage of unused or underused resources (Simberloff 1981; Roughgarden 1986), or are released from predators and pathogens (Keane and Crawley 2002; Mitchell and Power 2003; Colautti et al. 2004). Before the Membranipora invasion, kelps in the Gulf of Maine had few epibionts; thus, one reason why Membranipora was able to spread quickly was that it invaded a habitat that was largely available (Berman et al. 1992). In addition, Membranipora tends to be a strong competitor that overgrows the other typical kelp epibionts (Berman et al. 1992). Release from predation is also likely to have been important in allowing Membranipora to spread since no predators were seen consuming Membranipora in the first few years after its introduction (Lambert et al. 1992; Harris and Matheison 2000). While incidences of an association between potential predators and Membranipora have been noted (Harris and Matheison 2000; Chapman et al. 2002), no experimental studies have been conducted on predator preferences for Membranipora in the Gulf of Maine.

Many potential Membranipora predators occur in the Gulf of Maine, including dorid nudibranchs, sea urchins, snails, fish, and juvenile sea stars. Sea urchins have been shown to consume Membranipora while eating kelp, and urchins grow faster when they consume kelp covered in Membranipora than bare kelp (Nestler and Harris 1994). Where Membranipora is native, predation can play a major role regulating colony survival (Yoshioka 1982) and dorid nudibranchs tend to be the most important predators on Membranipora. On the west coast of the United States, Doridella steinbergae specializes in feeding on Membranipora (Seed 1976; Harvell 1986). In Europe, Onchidorismuricata (hereafter Onchidoris) will eat Membranipora but prefers the bryozoan Electrapilosa (Todd 1978, 1979; Chadwick and Thorpe 1981; Todd 1981; Todd and Havenhand 1989; Harris and Matheison 2000), whereas Polycera quadrilineata prefers Membranipora (Ryland 1976; Todd and Havenhand 1989). Onchidoris, Electra, and Membranipora are all currently found in the Gulf of Maine but P. quadrilineata is not. Onchidoris has been found in association with Membranipora in recent years (Harris and Matheison 2000; Chapman et al. 2002), but it is unclear whether this nudibranch is having any effect on the Membranipora population.

In the present study, we address three main questions: (1) will Onchidoris eat Membranipora, (2) does Onchidoris eat Membranipora and Electra at different rates, and (3) does Onchidoris prefer Membranipora or Electra?

Materials and methods

Bryozoan colonies are made of individual modules called zooids. Each zooid contains a polyp-like body called a polypide, which consists of the ciliated crown of feeding tentacles as well as the main body containing the gut. The polypide sits inside a protective housing (the zooecium). Zooids are budded asexually, and they remain connected physically and physiologically to create the colony. Onchidoris is a suctorial feeder, meaning it eats the polypide without destroying the zooecium (Ryland 1976; Todd 1978, 1979; Chadwick and Thorpe 1981; Todd 1981). Thus, it is possible to assess Onchidoris feeding by measuring polypide mortality.

Specimen collection and maintenance

Onchidoris was collected from rocks in the low-intertidal zone of Bailey Island, ME (N 43.718, W 70.002). Electra and Membranipora were collected growing on Chondrus crispus and Fucus vesiculosus respectively at sites on Bailey Island. The nudibranchs and bryozoans were brought back to the Bowdoin College Coastal Studies Center Marine Lab and maintained in running seawater at approximately ambient field temperature (8–12°C for long-term experiments, 15–16°C for video predation observations). Nudibranchs were provided a diet of both bryozoan species, but they were starved for 1–3 d prior to experiments.

Long term experiment

Small rectangles (0.5 cm  ×  1.0 cm) of algae covered with bryozoans were cut from separate colonies and allowed to stabilize for 24 h after removal. Each rectangle was then adhered with cyanoacrylite gel to the mesh on the lid of a modified plastic container. The 118 ml plastic containers (Rubbermaid, TakeAlong Mini Round) were modified by cutting two 2 ×  4 cm holes in the sides of the container and one 5 cm diameter hole in the container lid and gluing 500 μ m mesh over the holes to allow water to flow through (Fig.1A).
Fig. 1

Schematic of the long term experimental setup. (A) Modified plastic container with rectangle of algae covered in bryozoan glued onto the mesh lid (shown from the side and turned upside down). A nudibranch is shown on top of the bryozoan. (B) Each container was placed lid down on a 1-cm plastic grid. This plastic grid was placed on 5-cm supports in a flow-through seawater tank (183 cm  ×  91 cm  ×  15cm). There were eight replicates for each treatment and nine treatments (see Figure 2) for a total of 72 containers (only eight are shown here). The containers were arranged randomly on the plastic grid

Predation treatments included either Electra alone, Membranipora alone, or one rectangle of each bryozoan species placed approximately 0.5 cm apart (Fig.2). To control for mortality induced by handling or other causes apart from predation, background mortality control treatments similarly included either Electra alone, Membranipora alone, or both bryozoan species but without the nudibranchs. Finally, to test for nudibranch preference for the different algal hosts, rectangles of bare algae were affixed to additional chambers where nudibranchs were offered C. crispus alone, F. vesiculosus alone, or both algal species together. Each treatment included 8 replicates, and for each replicate new animals were used. Similar sized Onchidoris slugs (6.8 ± 0.2 mm in length) were starved for 24 h before the beginning of the experiment.
Fig. 2

Experimental design of the long term experiment showing the nine different treatments. Three treatments had bryozoans on algae without nudibranchs present (top row), three treatments had bryozoans on algae with nudibranchs present (middle row), and three treatments had algae with nudibranchs present but no bryozoans (bottom row). Each of these treatment combinations offered both species together as well as each species alone

Chambers were incubated in a flow-through seawater tank at ambient environmental temperature (8–12°C)(Fig. 1B). Zooid status was recorded at the beginning (day 0), middle (day 4), and end (day 11) of the experiment using a digital camera (Nikon CoolPix 995) and imaging software (Image J). To maximize the likelihood that the nudibranch would discover potential prey, individual Onchidoris were placed on the rectangles in the treatments involving only one option, or the nudibranch was placed between the rectangles in the choice treatments. On day 4 of the experiment, substantial predation had occurred in at least some of the treatments. At that time, we recorded the presence or absence of the nudibranch on each type of substratum for all treatments, and we recorded zooid status for bryozoan colony treatments with nudibranchs. Treatments were replaced and allowed to incubate for a subsequent 7 days, when all colonies were imaged and presence-absence observations for nudibranchs again recorded.

Each zooid in each colony piece was counted and classified (Cell Counter plugin, Image J). Zooids were categorized as either: (1) empty, (2) polypide (containing an intact membrane and full polypide), (3) brown body, or (4) bud (small brown body and partial polypide). Counts included only intact zooids (zooecium intact). Image J was also used to measure nudibranch length.

Video predation observations

We videotaped predation events to more accurately estimate the feeding rate for Onchidoris. A colony of Membranipora or Electra growing on a glass slide was stuck to the side of a 38-liter glass aquarium with pieces of wax so that the bryozoan was facing the inside of the tank (Fig. 3). An individual slug that had been starved 7–10 days was placed on top of the bryozoan colony and feeding was filmed through the glass wall of the aquarium and the glass slide using a digital video camera (Sony DCR-TRV900, two +4 diopter close-up filters). Onchidoris feeding was filmed for 2 s every minute for approximately 24 h. Feeding was filmed and analyzed for a total of 8 slugs (4 slugs per bryozoan species) of similar length (mean ± SD: 6.4 ± 0.3 mm). The water in the aquarium was strongly aerated and kept at 16°C during filming.
Fig. 3

(A) Schematic drawing of the video predation observations as shown from a side view. A glass slide with a bryozoan growing on it was affixed to the side of the tank with small pieces of wax. A sea slug was placed on top of the bryozoan and predation events were recorded through the glass slide and tank wall with a digital video camera. (B) A frame of video showing predation of a Membranipora colony

Because the bryozoans had been fed a bright red phytoplankton (Rhodomonas sp.) before filming, each polypide that had been actively feeding was bright red, which made it easier to see when the slug ate a polypide. The time it took to eat at least 20 individual polypides was recorded from each video. Since it is a suctorial feeder, Onchidoris spends much of its time feeling around for the opening into the zooid (Ryland 1976). We observed that slugs sometimes began eating one polypide, but moved on to another one before coming back to finish off the first. The time it took for the slugs to move back and forth among polypides and eat a number of them at once was recorded but categorized separately from instances where the slug concentrated on eating one entire polypide at a time.

Data analysis

Long term experiment

Polypide mortality was measured as the percent of polypides eaten per day:
$$ 100\left(\frac{P_{i} -P_{f}} {P_{i} T}\right), $$
where Pi is the number of polypide present at the beginning (day 0), Pf is the number of polypides present at the end (day 11), and T is the number of days (11). To test whether polypide mortality was caused by nudibranch predation or other background causes, we performed a fixed factor two-way ANOVA (Proc GLM, SAS v. 8.02) on percent polypide mortality per day, using nudibranch presence (present or absent) and bryozoan species (Membranipora or Electra) as fixed effects over the whole time period (0–11 days). Only treatments where there was no choice between bryozoans were included in the analysis of percent polypide mortality per day.

Consumption rate was measured as the number of polypides consumed per hour. To test which species of bryozoan Onchidoris could consume faster, we used a repeated measures ANOVA (Proc GLM, SAS v. 8.02) to compare consumption rates, using bryozoan species (Membranipora or Electra) as the fixed factor and time period (days 0–4 vs. days 4–11) as the repeated measure. Only treatments with no choice between bryozoans were included in this analysis of consumption rate.

To test whether Onchidoris prefers one bryozoan species over the other, we again compared consumption rates with bryozoan species (Membranipora or Electra) as the fixed factor and time period (days 0–4 vs. days 4–11) as the repeated measure. We also included a random nudibranch factor to account for consumption of each bryozoan species by the same nudibranch in the same container (Proc Mixed, SAS v. 8.02). Only treatments where the nudibranch was offered a choice between bryozoans were included in this analysis.

Video predation observations

An unpaired t-test (Proc TTEST, SAS 8.02) was used to measure the difference in consumption rate between bryozoan species when the slug was eating one polypide at a time and a separate t-test was performed for when the slugs ate two polypides at one time. A t-test was also performed to determine whether there was a difference between bryozoan species in the number of polypides that the slugs ate at a time.

Results

Does the algal substratum affect the behavior of Onchidoris?

Onchidoris was found on Electra in one quarter of the bryozoan treatments (8 out of a total of 32), and on Membranipora in one eighth (4 out of 32). As seen in other studies (Chadwick and Thorpe 1981), Onchidoris showed no attraction to either algal substratum and was never found on the bare algae. Thus, we assumed that the different algal substrata did not affect the slugs’ behavior.

Does Onchidoris readily consume both bryozoan species?

A significantly higher percent of the polypides died per day in treatments where nudibranchs were present than in those where nudibranchs were absent (Fig. 4), indicating that Onchidoris eats both bryozoan species and that this is easily detectible over background mortality levels. While there appeared to be a small amount of background mortality in Electra and maybe a small amount of background growth in Membranipora, there was no difference in the mean percent polypide mortality per day between bryozoan species (F1,28 = 0.01, P = 0.91) or for the interaction between bryozoan species and nudibranch presence (F1,28 = 1.53, P = 0.23).
Fig. 4

Percent polypide mortality per day as a function of bryozoan species when Onchidoris nudibranchs were absent or when nudibranchs were present. Overall, mortality was significantly higher when nudibranchs were present (F1,28 = 31.23, P  <  0.0001). Bars represent means ± SE

Does Onchidoris eat Electra and Membranipora at different rates?

Long term experiment

When Onchidoris was not given a choice between bryozoan species, the time by species interaction significantly affected polypide consumption rate (F1,14 = 28.86, P = 0.0001), while the species and time main effects did not have significant effects (F1,14 = 0.44, P = 0.52 and F1,14 = 0.48, P = 0.50 respectively). Onchidoris ate Membranipora faster during the first part of the experiment, but ate Electra faster during the second part (Fig. 5).
Fig. 5

Consumption rate of two species of bryozoan polypides eaten by Onchidoris when the nudibranch was not given a choice between prey species. Onchidoris ate Membranipora significantly faster than Electra (P = 0.0008) during the first four days, but it ate Electra faster than Membranipora (P = 0.0096) in the following seven days. Bars represent means ± SE

Video predation observations

When concentrating on one zooid at a time, Onchidoris ate Membranipora significantly faster than Electra (Fig. 6). When eating 2 zooids at a time, Onchidoris ate Electra (mean ± SE: 26.4 ± 4.2 polypides h−1) and Membranipora (mean ± SE: 26.4 ± 6.0 polypides h−1) zooids at similar rates (t31 = −0.03, P = 0.97). On average, Onchidoris ate significantly more Electra polypides (mean ± SE: 1.9 ± 0.11 polypides) at a time than Membranipora polypides (mean ± SE: 1.1 ± 0.05 polypides)(t184 = 5.98, P <  0.0001). Onchidoris often ate 2 to 3 Electra polypides at a time and occasionally ate 6 to 7 Electra polypides. Conversely, the slugs usually ate only 1 Membranipora polypide at a time and only occasionally ate 2 to 3 Membranipora polypides.
Fig. 6

Consumption rate of two species of bryozoan polypides eaten by Onchidoris when the nudibranch is concentrating on eating one polypide at a time. Data are taken from video recordings where only one species of bryozoan was offered to Onchidoris at a time. Onchidoris ate Membranipora significantly faster than Electra (t129 = −4.87, P <  0.0001). Bars represent means ± SE

Does Onchidoris prefer to eat Electra or Membranipora when given a choice?

When Onchidoris was given a choice between bryozoan species, time did not have a significant effect on consumption rate (F1,14 = 1.46, P = 0.25) and the time by species interaction also did not have a significant effect (F1,14 = 0.07, P = 0.79), so these factors were left out of the final model. Onchidoris consumed Electra faster than Membranipora (Fig. 7), and the random nudibranch factor did not have a significant effect (χ 2 = 1.9, P = 0.24).
Fig. 7

Consumption rate of two species of bryozoan polypides eaten by Onchidoris when the nudibranch was given a choice between prey species. Onchidoris consumed Electra faster than Membranipora (F1,13 = 6.28, P = 0.03) over the entire eleven day experiment. Bars represent means ± SE

Discussion

Feeding rate variation

In this study, average Onchidoris feeding rates measured over many days ranged from 0.13–0.66 polypides h−1 and 0.09–0.82 polypides h−1 on Electra and Membranipora respectively. These values are at the lower end of the published range. However, feeding rates for Onchidoris vary widely. Published rates include 0.4–5.2 polypides h−1 (Todd 1981), 2–12 polypides h−1 (Havenhand and Todd 1988), and 3–30 polypides h−1 (Todd and Havenhand 1989) for feeding on Electra, and 0.1–1.25 polypides h−1 for feeding on Membranipora (Chadwick and Thorpe 1981). Onchidoris consumption rates can depend on size, but size does not have as large an effect for larger slugs (Todd and Havenhand 1989), and the slugs used in this study (mean ± SD: 6.8 ± 0.2 mm and 6.4 ± 0.3 mm in the long-term study and video observations respectively) are relatively large as Onchidoris rarely gets longer than 10mm (Havenhand and Todd 1988).

Another source of variation in feeding rates is that Onchidoris does not eat constantly (Chadwick and Thorpe 1981; Todd and Havenhand 1989). Feeding rates are inconsistent primarily because of the variation in time spent eating, while the zooid handling time is presumed to be less variable (Todd and Havenhand 1989). When watching Onchidoris eating on time-lapsed video recordings, we found that mean consumption rate (based on the time it took to eat a single polypide) was much higher when the slug was eating Membranipora (34.8 ± 2.4 polypides h−1) than Electra (21.6 ± 1.8 polypides h−1). However, we also found that Onchidoris tends to concentrate on eating more than one Electra polypide at a time, but generally concentrates on eating only one Membranipora polypide at a time. Although handling time of Membranipora polypides is lower, the total consumption by the slugs is strongly affected by the amount of time spent eating. Variation in the amount of time spent eating can help explain some of our results. When Onchidoris was not given a choice, it ate more Membranipora than Electra in the first four days of the experiment, but ate more Electra in the next seven days. The slugs must have spent more time eating Membranipora in the first four days, but spent more time eating Electra in the next seven days. What caused this variation in time spent eating remains unclear.

Nudibranch feeding preference

When given a choice, Onchidoris eats more Electra than Membranipora. When not given a choice, Onchidoris can eat Membranipora faster, but it does not always spend as much time feeding on Membranipora.

If we divide the colony area (50 mm2) by the total number of zooids in the colony, we can get an average zooid size for each species. Membranipora zooids were 0.21 ± 0.03 mm2 (mean ± SD), while Electra zooids were 0.15 ± 0.02 mm2 in area. Given that Membranipora zooids are larger and they can be consumed faster, it would seem more beneficial for Onchidoris to consume Membranipora. However, Onchidoris may prefer Electra polypides because they are of higher nutritional quality. In addition, Electra is found in what may be a more suitable microhabitat for Onchidoris. Electra is very abundant on a red turfy algae, Chondruscrispus, where Membranipora is not found (Berman et al. 1992; M.C. Pratt, personal observation). Onchidoris may be better protected from dislodgement and/or predators when it is in the C. crispus canopy making it a better species of seaweed to forage on. In addition, Electra covering C. crispus has higher winter survival than Membranipora does on other seaweeds (M.C. Pratt, personal observation), so perhaps Electra is simply a more reliable food source over the winter.

This study is limited in scope to looking at the feeding preference of Onchidoris when only exposed to two species of bryozoans. In the field in Maine, Onchidoris has other food choices beyond Membranipora and Electra such as Celleporella hyalina (Chadwick and Thorpe 1981; Todd 1981; personal observation). While bryozoan and nudibranch densities have not yet been measured in the field, local sites on Bailey Island, ME where this study took place tend to have algae dominated by Membranipora and Electra (personal observations). To have a more complete understanding of food preference and the consequences of such preferences, further studies are needed to measure what bryozoan species Onchidoris is eating in the field, how much time it spends eating each species, as well as the abundance of Onchidoris relative to its food supply.

Implications of the Membranipora invasion on the community

Onchidoris has an annual life cycle. The slugs typically reproduce in the spring, and the larvae settle in the summer and early fall. The slugs then eat and grow in the fall and winter and cease feeding in the spring when they start reproducing (Todd 1978, 1987; Bleakney 1996). Contrary to the timing of this typical life cycle, Onchidoris has been seen laying eggs on top of Membranipora colonies in the winter at the Isle of Shoals (Harris and Matheison 2000). Is Onchidoris shifting its life cycle to take advantage of the huge supply of Membranipora in the late summer and early fall? Continued monitoring of the life cycle of Onchidoris will reveal any shifts that result from the Membranipora invasion.

Regardless of whether or not Onchidoris prefers Membranipora over Electra, as long as the slug eats Membranipora there may be consequences for the entire community. If enough Onchidoris slugs eat Membranipora, the Membranipora population may be kept from dominating the epibiont community. In addition, the Onchidoris population could increase substantially by taking advantage of the very large seasonal food supply of Membranipora. If Onchidoris still prefers Electra, a larger Onchidoris population could have a substantial negative effect on the Electra population. Alternatively, Onchidoris may not eat much Membranipora, thus allowing Membranipora to continue to dominate the epibiont community.

When both species of bryozoans settle on an algal host, Membranipora tends to overgrow Electra and dominate the alga (Berman et al. 1992; M.C. Pratt, personal observation). Thus, Membranipora may effectively exclude Electra from certain algal hosts such as kelps where Membranipora dominates, and algae such as C. crispus could be a refuge from competition for Electra. However, because Onchidoris prefers C. crispus microhabitats, C. crispus would not be a refuge from predation.

The effect of Onchidoris on Membranipora and vice versa will depend on feeding preference as well as other factors such as water flow. Since Onchidoris does eat other bryozoan species and even prefers other species such as Electra, this slug may not have a large impact on the Membranipora population when alternative prey is available. In addition, what microhabitat Onchidoris spends most of its time in will also have an effect on what it eats. In high flow environments, the slugs might prefer microhabitats with a reduced risk of dislodgement such as C. crispus. Onchidoris may not have a large impact on Membranipora in high flow environment because Membranipora is found more often growing on kelps and fucoids where dislodgement risk may be higher. Since many factors can influence the effect of Onchidoris on Membranipora and vice versa, there may only be certain circumstances when predation does reduce the Membranipora population such as when there are fewer alternative prey species available and water velocity is slower. Further research is needed in the field to see how factors such as alternative prey and flow velocity affect the impact of Onchidoris on Membranipora.

Our observations in the field on Bailey Island, Maine do not suggest that predation is currently having a significant effect on the Membranipora population (M.C. Pratt, personal observation), and observers in Atlantic Canada have similarly seen little effect of Onchidoris on Membranipora (Chapman et al. 2002). However, this system appears to be dynamic, as suggested by observations further south where a substantial number of Onchidoris slugs have been seen on Membranipora (Harris and Matheison 2000). Future research should include following the populations of these species and their interactions in the field to determine how the Membranipora invasion will affect the Onchidoris population and vice versa in the long term. While the introduction of non-native species can have substantial negative effects, such introductions can also provide the opportunity to observe the evolution of biological interactions such as predation and competition (Lodge 1993; Casey 2005). Thus, it is important to measure the interactions of invasive species with other organisms in their new habitats over long time scales so we can learn how such interactions evolve.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the Bowdoin College Coastal Studies Center for use of space at the Marine Lab. M. Pizer and anonymous reviewers provided comments that helped improve this paper substantially.

References

  1. Berman J, Harris L, Lambert W, Buttrick M, Dufresne M (1992) Recent invasions of the Gulf of Maine: three contrasting ecological histories. Conserv Biol 6:435–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bleakney JS (1996) Sea slugs of Atlantic Canada and the Gulf of Maine. Nimbus Publishing and the Nova Scotia Museum, Halifax, Nova Scotia, 216 ppGoogle Scholar
  3. Brenchley G, Carlton JT (1983) Competitive displacement of native mud snails by introduced periwinkles in the New England intertidal zone. Biol Bull 165:543–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bruno JF, Fridley JD, Bromberg KD, Bertness MD (2005) Insights into biotic interactions from studies of species invasions. In: Sax DF, Stachowicz JJ, Gaines SD (eds), Species invasions: insights into ecology, evolution and biogeography. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland MA, pp 14–40Google Scholar
  5. Byers JE (2000) Competition between two estuarine snails: implications for invasions of exotic species. Ecology 81:1225–1239Google Scholar
  6. Cancino JM, Muñoz J, Muñoz M, Orellana MC (1987) Effects of the bryozoan Membranipora tuberculata (Bosc) on the photosynthesis and growth of Gelidium rex Santelices Et Abbott. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 113:105–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Casey P (2005) Insights into ecology. In: Sax DF, Stachowicz JJ, Gaines SD (eds) Species invasions: insights into ecology, evolution, and biogeography. Sinauer Associates, Inc. Publishers, Sunderland, Massechusetts, pp 9–12Google Scholar
  8. Chadwick SR, Thorpe JP (1981) An investigation of some aspects of bryozoan predation by dorid nudibranchs (Mollusca: Opisthobranchia). In: Larwood GP, Nielsen C (eds) Recent and Fossil Bryozoa. Olsen & Olsen, Fredensborg, pp 51–58Google Scholar
  9. Chapman AS, Scheibling RE, Chapman ARO (2002) Species introductions and changes in marine vegetation of Atlantic Canada. In: Claudi R, Nantel P, Muckle-Jeffs E (eds), Alien Invaders in Canada’s waters, wetlands, and forests. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service Science Branch, Ottawa, pp 133–148Google Scholar
  10. Chavanich S, Harris LG (2000) Potential impact of the introduced bryozoan, Membranipora membranacea, on the subtidal snail, Lacuna vincta, in the Gulf of Maine. In: Pederson J (eds), Marine bioinvasions. MIT Sea Grant College Program, Cambridge, MA, pp 157–163Google Scholar
  11. Clarke B, Johnson MS, Murray J (1984) The extinction of endemic species by a program of biological control. Pacific Sci 38:97–104Google Scholar
  12. Colautti RI, Ricciardi A, Grigorovich IA, MacIsaac HJ (2004) Is invasion success explained by the enemy release hypothesis? Ecol Lett 7:721–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dixon J, Schroeter SC, Kastendiek J (1981) Effects of the encrusting bryozoan, Membranipora membranacea, on the loss of blades and fronds by the giant kelp, Macrocystis pyrifera (Laminariales). J Phycol 17:341–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grosholz ED, Ruiz GM, Dean CA, Shirley KA, Maron JL, Connors PG (2000) The impacts of a nonindigenous marine predator in a California bay. Ecology 81:1206–1224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gurevitch J, Padilla DK (2004) Are invasive species a major cause of extinctions? Trends Ecol Evol 19:470–474PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harris LG, Matheison AC (2000) Patterns of range expansion, niche shift and predator acquisition in Codium fagile ssp. tomentosoides and Membranipora membranacea in the Gulf of Maine. In: Pederson J (ed) Marine bioinvasions. MIT Sea Grant College Program, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, pp 46–56Google Scholar
  17. Harris LG, Tyrrell MC (2001) Changing community states in the Gulf of Maine: synergism between invaders, overfishing and climate change. Biol Inv 3:9–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harvell CD (1986) The ecology and evolution of inducible defenses in a marine bryozoan: cues, costs and consequences. Am Natur 128:810–823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Havenhand JN, Todd CD (1988) Physiological ecology of Adalaria proxima (Alder Et Hancock) and Onchidoris muricata (Muller) (Gastropoda, Nudibranchia). 1. Feeding, growth, and respiration. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 118:151–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Herbold B, Moyle PB (1986) Introduced species and vacant niches. Am Natur 128:751–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hockey PAR, Schurink CV (1992) The invasive biology of the mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis on the Southern African Coast. Trans R Soc S Afr 48:123–139Google Scholar
  22. Hurd CL, Durante KM, Chia FS, Harrison PJ (1994) Effect of bryozoan colonization on inorganic nitrogen acquisition by the kelps Agarum fimbriatum and Macrocystis integrifolia. Mar Biol 121:167–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hurd CL, Durante KM, Harrison PJ (2000) Influence of bryozoan colonization on the physiology of the kelp Macrocystis integrifolia (Laminariales, Phaeophyta) from nitrogen-rich and -poor sites in Barkley Sound, British Columbia, Canada. Phycologia 39:435–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Keane RM, Crawley MJ (2002) Exotic plant invasions and the enemy release hypothesis. Trends Ecol Evol 17:164–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lambert WJ (1990) Population ecology and feeding biology of nudibranchs in colonies of the hydroid Obelia genicula. PhD Thesis, Department of Zoology, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, pp 189Google Scholar
  26. Lambert WJ, Levin PS, Berman J (1992) Changes in the structure of a New England (USA) kelp bed: the effects of an introduced species? Mar Ecol Prog Ser 88:303–307Google Scholar
  27. Levin PS, Coyer JA, Petrik R, Good TP (2002) Community-wide effects of nonindigenous species on temperate rocky reefs. Ecology 83:3182–3193Google Scholar
  28. Lodge DM (1993) Biological invasions: lessons for ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 8:133–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mathieson AC, Dawes CJ, Harris LG, Hehre EJ (2003) Expansion of the Asiatic green alga Codium fragile ssp. tomentosoides in the Gulf of Maine. Rhodora 105:1–53Google Scholar
  30. Mitchell CE, Power AG (2003) Release of invasive plants from fungal and viral pathogens. Nature 421:625–627PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Morgan M, Threlkeld ST, Goldman CR (1978) Impact of the introduction of kokanee Oncorhynchus nerka and opossum shrimp Mysis relicta on a subalpine lake. J Fisher Res Board Canada 35:1572–1579Google Scholar
  32. Muñoz J, Cancino JM, Molina MX (1991) Effect of encrusting bryozoans on the physiology of the algal substratum. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 71:877–882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nestler EC, Harris LG (1994) The importance of omnivory in Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis (Muller) in the Gulf of Maine. In: David B, Guille A, Feral J-P, Roux M (eds), Echinoderms through time, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, pp 813–818Google Scholar
  34. Oswald RC, Telford N, Seed R, Happey Wood CM (1984) The effect of encrusting bryozoans on the photosynthetic activity of Fucus serratus. Estuarine Coastal Shelf Sci 19:697–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Race M (1982) Competitive displacement and predation between native and introduced mud snails. Oecologia 54:337–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Roughgarden J (1986) Predicting invasions and rates of spread. In: Mooney HA, Drake JA (eds), Ecology of biological invasions of North America and Hawaii. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 179–188Google Scholar
  37. Ryland JS (1976) Physiology and ecology of marine bryozoans. Adv Mar Biol 14:285–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Saier B, Chapman AS (2004) Crusts of the alien bryozoan Membranipora membranacea can negatively impact spore output from native kelps (Laminaria longicruris). Bot Mar 47:265–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Scheibling RE (2000) Species invasions and community change threaten the sea urchin fishery in Nova Scotia. Retrived from http://www.crdpm.umcs.ca/oursin/sesv.htm
  40. Scheibling RE, Hennigar AW, Balch T (1999) Destructive grazing, epiphytism, and disease: The dynamics of sea urchin - kelp interactions in Nova Scotia. Can J Fis Aquat Sci 56:2300–2314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Seed R (1976) Observations on the ecology of Membranipora (Bryozoa) and a major predator Doridella steinbergae (Nudibranchiata) along the fronds of Laminaria saccharina at Friday Harbor, Washington. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 24:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Simberloff D (1981) Community effects of introduced species. In: Nitecki MH (eds), Biotic crises in ecological and evolutionary time. Academic Press, San Francisco, pp 53–81Google Scholar
  43. Simberloff D, Von Holle B (1999) Positive interactions of nonindigenous species: invasional meltdown? Biol Inv 1:21–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stachowicz JJ, Terwin JR, Whitlatch RB, Osman RW (2002) Linking climate change and biological invasions: ocean warming facilitates nonindigenous species invasions. Proc Natl Acad Sci 99:15497–15500PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sumi CBT, Scheibling RE (2005) Role of grazing by sea urchins Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis in regulating the invasive alga Codium fragile ssp tomentosoides in Nova Scotia. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 292:203–212Google Scholar
  46. Theriault C (2003) Mapping the subtidal distribution of the invasive alga Codium fragile ssp. tomentosoides in coastal waters of Nova Scotia using the Compact Airborne Spectographic Imager (CASI). MSc thesis, Department of Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, pp 85Google Scholar
  47. Todd CD (1978) Changes in spatial pattern of an intertidal population of nudibranch mollusk Onchidoris muricata in relation to life-cycle, mortality and environmental heterogeneity. J Anim Ecol 47:189–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Todd CD (1979) Reproductive energetics of 2 species of dorid nudibranchs with planktotrophic and lecithotrophic larval strategies. Mar Biol 53:57–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Todd CD (1981) The ecology of nudibranch molluscs. Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev 19:141–234Google Scholar
  50. Todd CD (1987) Reproductive energetics and larval strategies of nudibranch mollusks: effects of ration level during the spawning period in Onchidoris muricata (Muller) and Adalaria proxima (Alder and Hancock). Am Malacol Bull 5:293–301Google Scholar
  51. Todd CD, Havenhand JN (1989) Nudibranch-bryozoan associations: the quantification of ingestion and some observations on partial predation among Doridoidea. J Molluscan Stud 55:245–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vermeij GJ (1991) When biotas meet: understanding biotic interchange. Science 253:1099–1104CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Wing BL, Clendenning KA (1971) Kelp surfaces and associated invertebrates. In: North WJ (ed) The biology of Giant Kelp Beds (Macrocystis) in California. Nova Hedwigia, pp 319–341Google Scholar
  54. Yoshioka PM (1982) Role of planktonic and benthic factors in the population dynamics of the bryozoan Membranipora membranacea. Ecology 63:457–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zaret TM, Paine RT (1973) Species introduction in a tropical lake. Science 182:449–455CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Biology DepartmentBowdoin CollegeBrunswickUSA

Personalised recommendations