Advertisement

Hydrobiologia

, Volume 443, Issue 1–3, pp 129–136 | Cite as

Laboratory study of the grass shrimp feeding preferences

  • M. Letizia Costantini
  • Loreto Rossi
Article

Abstract

Grass shrimps are very common in various aquatic habitats, and are generally considered omnivorous. But, despite the numerous studies on interspecific trophic interactions, few studies have evaluated their feeding strategy, especially by experimental approaches.

In this study, we determined, in the absence of both intra and interspecific competitive interactions, the feeding preferences of the freshwater grass shrimp Palaemonetes antennarius for the most common potential resources in its habitat. Plant and animal items were offered as food to each adult shrimp in multiple-choice laboratory experiments. Resource selection was determined under conditions of low and high food availability and related to the shrimp body size. The role of microbial colonisation in favouring detritivory was also investigated.

Results of these experiments showed that P. antennarius consumed only animal items, mostly preferring the isopod Proasellus coxalis. In addition, palatability of the unselected plant remains and non-living prey was not improved by the microbial enrichment. Shrimps also resorted to cannibalism at low ration. By contrast, at high ration they specialised on a narrower range of resources, directing more their feeding efforts towards isopods. The preference ranking of the selected food types was inversely related to the average mass of the prey and varied with the shrimp body size. In particular, the number of live isopods in the diet increased exponentially with the shrimp mass at food high ration, which resulted not to be limiting. In conclusion, food availability influences the food niche of P. antennarius whose feeding strategy in the laboratory is facultative specialisation on dead and live animals rather than omnivory. Ease of handling and/or capture seems to play a role in the food preference ranking.

Palaemonetes antennarius feeding preference body size food level food niche 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bärlocher, F. & B. Kendrick, 1973. Fungi in the diet of Gammarus pseudolimnaeus (Amphipoda). Oikos 24: 295–300.Google Scholar
  2. Bowen, S. H., E. V. Lutz & M. O. Ahlgren, 1995. Dietary protein and energy as determinants of food quality: trophic strategies compared. Ecology 76: 899–907.Google Scholar
  3. Chesson, J., 1978. Measuring preference in selective predation. Ecology 59: 211–215.Google Scholar
  4. Collins, P. A., 1999. Feeding of Palaemonetes argentinus (Decapoda: Palaemonidae) from an oxbow lake of the Paranà River, Argentina. J. Crust. Biol. 19: 485–492.Google Scholar
  5. Cross, R. E. & A. E. Stiven, 1997. Experimental studies of competition in salt marsh juvenile fish (Fundulus heteroclitus Linnaeus) and shrimp (Palaemonetes pugio Holthuis) in laboratory microcosms. J. exp. mar. Biol. Ecol. 212: 133–147.Google Scholar
  6. Dall, S. R. X. & I. C. Cuthill, 1997. The information costs of generalism. Oikos 80: 197–202.Google Scholar
  7. Dalla Via, G. J., 1983. Ecological studies on the freshwater shrimp Palaemonetes antennarius of Laguna di Lesina (Gargano, South Italy). Arch. Hydrobiol. 97: 227–239.Google Scholar
  8. Dalla Via, G. J., 1987. Effects of salinity and temperature on oxygen consumption in a freshwater population of Palaemonetes antennarius (Crustacea, Decapoda). Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 88: 299–305.Google Scholar
  9. Duffy, J. E. & M. E. Hay, 1994. Herbivore resistance to seaweed chemical defense: the roles of mobility and predation risk. Ecology 75: 1304–1319.Google Scholar
  10. Dutil, J.-D., J Munro & M. Péloquin, 1997. Laboratory study of the influence of prey size on vulnerability to cannibalism in snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio O. Fabricius, 1970). J. exp. mar. Biol. Ecol. 212: 81–94.Google Scholar
  11. Escaravage, V. & J. Castel, 1990. The impact of the lagoonal shrimp Palaemonetes varians (Leach) on meiofauna in a temperate coastal impoundment. Acta Oecol. 11: 409–418.Google Scholar
  12. Everett, R. A. & G. M. Ruiz, 1993. Coarse woody debris as a refuge from predation in aquatic communities: an experimental test. Oecologia 93: 475–486.Google Scholar
  13. Glasser, J. W., 1984. Evolution of efficiencies and strategies of resource exploitation. Ecology 65: 1570–1578.Google Scholar
  14. Greenstone, M. H., 1979. Spider feeding behaviour optimises dietary essential aminoacid composition. Nature 282: 501–503.Google Scholar
  15. Gregg, C. S. & J. W. Fleeger, 1998. Grass shrimp Palaemonetes pugio on sediment-and stem-dwelling meiofauna: fields and laboratory experiments. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 175: 77–86.Google Scholar
  16. Hill, A. N. & D. M. Lodge, 1995. Multi-trophic-level impact of sublethal interactions between bass and omnivorous crayfish. J. n. am. Benthol. Soc. 14: 306–314.Google Scholar
  17. Holling, C. S., 1959. Some characteristics of simple types of predation and parasitism. Can. Entomol. 91: 385–398.Google Scholar
  18. Hofer, R., G. J. Dalla Via & B. Obermuller, 1980. Oekologische Untersuchungen an Palaemonetes antennarius in Gardasee. Arch. Hydrobiol. 90: 197–209.Google Scholar
  19. Kahn, R. N., H. C. Merchant & R. E. Knowlton, 1997. Effects of macrophytic cover on the distribution of grass shrimps, Palaemonetes pugio and P. vulgaris. Invert. Biol. 116: 243–247.Google Scholar
  20. Krebs, J. R., 1978. Optimal foraging: decision rules for predators. In Krebs, J. R. & N. B. Davies (eds), Behavioral Ecology: an Evolutionary Approach. Sinauer, Sunderland, Mass: 23–63.Google Scholar
  21. Lima, S. L. & L. M. Dill, 1990. Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Can. J. Zool. 68: 619–640.Google Scholar
  22. McNaught, A. S., D. W. Schindler, B. R. Parker, A. J. Paul, R. S. Anderson, D. B. Donald & M. Agbeti, 1999. Restoration of the food web of an alpine lake following fish stocking. Limnol. Oceanogr. 44: 127–136.Google Scholar
  23. Paine R. T., 1980. Food webs: linkage, interaction strength and community infrastructure. J. anim. Ecol. 49: 667–685.Google Scholar
  24. Peckarsky, B. L., C. A. Cowan & C. R. Anderson, 1994. Consequences and plasticity of the specialized predatory behavior of stream-dwelling stonefly larvae. Ecology 75: 166–181.Google Scholar
  25. Peterson, C. H. & P. E. Renaud, 1989. Analysis of feeding preference experiments. Oecologia 80: 82–86.Google Scholar
  26. Posey, M. H. & A. H. Hines, 1991. Complex predator-prey interactions within an estuarine benthic community. Ecology 72: 2155–2169.Google Scholar
  27. Pyke, G. H., H. R. Pulliam & E. L. Charnov, 1977. Optimal foraging: a selected review of theory and tests. Quart. Rev. Biol. 52: 137–154.Google Scholar
  28. Rossi, L., 1985. The niche width components and implications in an aquatic ecosystem process. Atti. S.It.E. 5: 343–352.Google Scholar
  29. Roughgarden, J., 1979. Theory of Population Genetics and Evolutionary Ecology: an Introduction. Mcmillan Publishing Co., New York.Google Scholar
  30. Shannon, C. E. & W. Weaver, 1949. The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana, University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  31. Smith, L. D. & B. C. Coull, 1987. Juvenile spot (Pisces) and grass shrimp predation on meiobenthos in muddy and sandy substrata. J. exp. mar. Biol. Ecol. 105: 123–136.Google Scholar
  32. Thompson, D. B., D. F. Tomback, M. A. Cunningham & M. C. Baker, 1987. Seed selection by dark-eyed juncos (Junco hyemalis): optimal foraging with nutrient constraints? Oecologia 74: 106–111.Google Scholar
  33. Thorp, J. H., 1976. Interference competition as a mechanism of coexistence between two sympatric species of the grass shrimp Palaemonetes (Decapoda: Palaemonidae). J. exp. mar. Biol. Ecol. 25: 19–35.Google Scholar
  34. Ugolini, A., P. Talluri & M. Vannini, 1989. Astronomial orientation and learning in the shrimp Palaemonetes antennarius. Mar. Biol. 103: 489–493.Google Scholar
  35. Van Marken Lechtenbelt W. D., 1993. Optimal foraging of a herbivorous lizard, the green iguana in a seasonal environment. Oecologia 95: 246–256.Google Scholar
  36. Walters, K., E. Jones & L. Etherington, 1996. Experimental studies of predation onmetazoans inhabiting Spartina alterniflora stems. J. exp. mar. Biol. Ecol. 195: 251–265.Google Scholar
  37. Zar J. H., 1984. Biostatistical Analysis. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Letizia Costantini
    • 1
  • Loreto Rossi
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Genetics and Molecular BiologyUniversity of RomeRomeItaly
  2. 2.Department of Genetics and Molecular BiologyUniversity of RomeRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations