Advertisement

Aquatic Ecology

, Volume 34, Issue 3, pp 253–260 | Cite as

Density dependent grazing effects of the isopod Idotea baltica Pallas on Fucus vesiculosus L in the Baltic Sea

  • Roland Engkvist
  • Torleif Malm
  • Stefan Tobiasson
Article

Abstract

In the Baltic Sea, abiotic factors are often supposed to explain the distribution of the key species Fucus vesiculosus. Still, in many areas, decline of F. vesiculosus has coincided with mass occurrence of the herbivorous isopod Idotea baltica. The aim of this work was to examine whether, how and at what densities I. baltica can affect the distribution of F. vesiculosus in the central Baltic proper. Both large-scale field surveys and a two-week grazing experiment have been performed.

In the field survey there was a correlation between density of I. baltica and reduction in depth penetration of F. vesiculosus. At 80 animals per 100 g F. vesiculosus wet weight, the depth penetration of the F. vesiculosus belt was reduced by 2.5 m within a year. In the grazing experiment there was a correlation between density of I. baltica and loss of F. vesiculosus biomass and meristems. In the controls biomass and number of meristems increased by 50%, while at 20 animals per 100 g of F. vesiculosus there was no net growth of F. vesiculosus. Intensity of grazing did not differ between isopod densities of 20, 40 and 60/100 g. At isopod densities of 80 and 100/100 g though, biomass and meristems decreased by 50%, indicating a threshold for the survival of F. vesiculosus in the experiment. At all densities the isopods preferred younger tissue to older.

Our results indicate that grazing by Idotea baltica is an important structuring factor in the Baltic Fucus vesiculosus populations.

Baltic Sea experimental study field study Fucus vesiculosus grazing Idotea baltica 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andrew NL and Underwood AJ (1993) Density-dependent foraging in the sea urchin Centrostephanus rodgersii on shallow subtidal reefs in New South Wales Australia. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 99: 89–98Google Scholar
  2. Anonymous (1997) Report of the Baltic Fisheries Assessment Working Group. ICES C.M. 1977/Assess:12Google Scholar
  3. Carlson L (1991) Seasonal variation in growth, reproduction and nitrogen content of Fucus vesiculosus L in the Oeresund, southern Sweden. Bot Mar 34: 447–53Google Scholar
  4. Denton AB and Chapman ARO (1991) Feeding preferences of gammarid amphipods among four species of Fucus. Mar Biol 109: 503–506Google Scholar
  5. Ilvessalo H and Tuomi J (1989) Nutrient availability and accumulation of phenolic compounds in the brown alga Fucus vesiculosus. Mar Biol 101: 115–119Google Scholar
  6. Jansson A-M and Kautsky N (1977) Quantitative survey of hard bottom communities in a Baltic archipelago. In: Keegan BF, O'Cidigh P, Boaden PJS (eds.) Biology of Benthic organisms pp. 359–366. Pergamon Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Jansson BO and Källander C (1968) On the diurnal activity of some littoral peracarid crustaceans in the Baltic Sea. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 2: 24–36Google Scholar
  8. Kangas P and Skoog G (1978) Salinity tolerance of Theodoxus fluviatilis (Mollusca, Gastropoda) from freshwater and from different salinity regimes in the Baltic Sea. Estuar Coast Mar Sci 6 (4): 409–416Google Scholar
  9. Kangas P, Autio H, Hällfors G, Luther H, Niemi A and Salemaa H (1982) A General Model of the Decline of Fucus vesiculosus at Tvaerminne, South Coast of Finland, in 1977–81. Acta Bot Fenn 118: 1–27Google Scholar
  10. Kautsky H (1995) Quantitative distribution of sublittoral plant and animal communities in the Baltic Sea gradient. In: Eleftheriou A, Ansell AD and Smith CJ (eds.) Biology and Ecology of Shallow Coastal Waters. Proceed. 28th EMBS Crete 23–28th Sept 1993. Olsen & Olsen, Fredensborg, pp. 23–31Google Scholar
  11. Kautsky H and Maarel E van der (1990) Multivariate approaches to the variation in phytobenthic communities and environmental vectors in the Baltic Sea. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 60 (1–2): 169–184Google Scholar
  12. Kautsky L and Kautsky H (1989) Algal species diversity and dominance along gradients of stress and disturbance in marine environments. Vegetatio 83: 259–67Google Scholar
  13. Kautsky N, Kautsky H, Kautsky U and Waern M (1986) Decreased depth penetration of Fucus vesiculosus (L) since the 1940's indicates eutrophication of the Baltic Sea. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 28(1–2): 1–8Google Scholar
  14. Keuls M (1952) The use of the 'studentised range' in connection with the analysis of variance. Euphytica 1: 112–122Google Scholar
  15. Kiirikki M (1996) Mechanisms affecting macroalgal zonation in the northern Baltic Sea. Eur J Phycol 31: 225–232Google Scholar
  16. Knight M and Parke M (1950) A biological study of Fucus vesiculosus L and F. Serratus L. J Mar Biol Ass 24: 439–515Google Scholar
  17. Laurén-Määttä C (1991) Adaptations to grazing of some Baltic macroalgae. M Sc Thesis, Abo Akademi Finland Dept of BiologyGoogle Scholar
  18. Lifvergren T (1998) Dispersal capacities of Fucus vesiculosus gametes and recolonisation based on regeneration. Diploma Work Dep of Natu Sci University of Kalmar 1998: Bi 6Google Scholar
  19. Lubchenco J (1980) Algal zonation in the New England rocky intertidal community: an experimental analysis. Ecology 61 (2): 333–344Google Scholar
  20. Malm T, Engkvist R and Kautsky L (1999) Grazing effects by two fresh-water snails on juvenile Fucus vesiculosus in the Baltic Sea. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 188: 63–71Google Scholar
  21. Newman D (1939) The distribution of range in samples from a normal population, expressed in terms of an independent estimate of standard deviation. Biometrika 31: 20–30Google Scholar
  22. Pavia H and Toth G (1999) Inducible chemical resistance to herbivory in the brown seaweed Ascophyllum nodosum In: Pavia, H., section V: Patterns, Causes and Consequences of variation in the phlorotannin content of the brown alga Ascophyllum nodosum. Thesis/Dissertation, Department of Marine Botany Göteborg University SwedenGoogle Scholar
  23. Pavia H, Cervin G, Lindgren A and Aberg P (1997) Effects of UV-B radiation and simulated herbivory on phlorotannins in the brown alga Ascophyllum nodosum. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 157: 139Google Scholar
  24. Price PW (1991) The plant vigour hypothesis and herbivore attack. Oikos 62: 244–51Google Scholar
  25. Rasmussen E (1973) Systematics and ecology of the Isefjord marine fauna (Denmark). Ophelia 11: 156–157Google Scholar
  26. Rönnberg O, Lehto J and Haahtela I (1985) Recent changes in the occurrence of Fucus vesiculosus in the Archipelago Sea sw Finland. Ann Bot Fennici 22: 231–244Google Scholar
  27. Salemaa H (1979) Ecology of Idotea spp (Isopoda) in the northern Baltic. Ophelia 18: 133–150Google Scholar
  28. Salemaa H (1987) Herbivory and microhabitat preferences of Idotea spp (Isopoda) in the Northern Baltic Sea. Ophelia 27 (1): 1–15Google Scholar
  29. Sandén P and Danielsson A (1995) Spatial properties of nutrient concentrations in the Baltic Sea. Environ Monit Assess 34: 289–307Google Scholar
  30. Schaffelke B, Evers D and Walhorn A (1995) Selective grazing of the isopod Idotea baltica between Fucus evanescens and F. vesiculosus from Kiel Fjord (western Baltic). Mar Biol 124: 215–218Google Scholar
  31. Scheibling RE, Hennigar AW and Balch T (1999) Destructive grazing, epiphytism, and disease: the dynamics of sea urchin-kelp interactions in Nova Scotia. Can J Fisheries Aquat Sci 56: 2300–2314Google Scholar
  32. Skoog G (1978) Influence of natural food items on growth and egg production in brackish water populations of Lymnea peregra and Theodoxus fluviatilis (Mollusca). Oikos 31 (3): 340–348Google Scholar
  33. Tobiasson S, Engkvist R, Nilsson J and Persson LE (1992) Samordnad kustvattenkontroll i Kalmar län Årsrapport 1991. Report 92:7. Department of Natural Sciences University of KalmarGoogle Scholar
  34. Tugwell S and Branch GM (1992) Effects of herbivore gut surfactants on kelp polyphenol defences. Ecology 73: 205–215Google Scholar
  35. Tuomi J, Ilvessalo H, Niemelä P, Sirén S and Jormalainen V (1989) Within-plant variation in phenolic content and toughness of the brown alga Fucus vesiculosus L. Bot Mar 32: 505–509Google Scholar
  36. Underwood AJ (1997) Experiments in Ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 235–242Google Scholar
  37. Van Alstyne KL (1988) Herbivory grazing increases polyphenolic defences in the intertidal brown alga Fucus distichus. Ecology 69 (3): 655–663Google Scholar
  38. Wallentinus I (1979) Environmental influences on benthic macrovegetation in the Trosa-Askö area Northern Baltic proper II. The Ecology of Macroalgae and Submersed Phanerogams. Askö Laboratory 1979: 25 Contributions from the Askö Laboratory University of Stockholm, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  39. Worm B and Chapman AR (1996) Interference competition among two intertidal seaweeds: Chondrus crispus strongly affects survival of Fucus evanescens recruits. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 145 (1–3): 297–301Google Scholar
  40. Worm B, Lotze HK, Bostrom C, Engkvist R., Labanauskas V and Sommer U (1999) Marine diversity shift linked to interactions among grazers, nutrients and propagule banks. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 185: 309–314Google Scholar
  41. Yates JL and Peckol P (1993) Effects of nutrient availability and herbivory on polyphenolics in the seaweed Fucus vesiculosus. Ecology 74 (6): 1757–1766Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roland Engkvist
    • 1
  • Torleif Malm
    • 2
  • Stefan Tobiasson
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Biology and Environmental ScienceUniversity of KalmarKalmarSweden
  2. 2.Department of BotanyUniversity of StockholmStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations