Advertisement

Russian Journal of Biological Invasions

, Volume 10, Issue 4, pp 349–357 | Cite as

Comparative Analysis of Predatory Behavior of Invasive Alien Dikerogammarus villosus (Sowinsky, 1894) and Native Gammarus varsoviensis Jazdzewski, 1975 Amphipods

  • T. P. LipinskayaEmail author
  • A. I. MakarenkoEmail author
Article
  • 1 Downloads

Abstract

Alien species of amphipods were registered in Belarus in the early 2000s. Over many years of observing the structure of the riverine macrozoobenthos community, a decrease in the frequency of occurrence of indigenous amphipod species in the southern part of Belarus was noted. In order to find an explanation of the current process, a laboratory experiment was conducted to study the predatory effect of the invasive alien (Dikerogammarus villosus (Sowinsky, 1894)) and native (Gammarus varsoviensis Jazdzewski, 1975) species of amphipods on some macrozoobenthos groups to compare the values of predation rates of amphipods and interspecific interaction of the two amphipod species. During the experiments on the food selectivity, it was found that invasive alien and native species of amphipods consumed the same number of macrozoobenthos groups. The maximum values of the predation rate of amphipods were determined when they consumed water louse and mayfly larvae; there were no statistically significant differences found. The average values of the predation rate of the invasive alien species were lower when it consumed adults of G. varsoviensis than young of G. varsoviensis. On the basis of the experimental data, it can be assumed that the direct predatory pressure of D. villosus or another similar alien species of amphipods (for example, D. haemobaphes (Eichwald, 1841)) is one of the main reasons for the disappearance of G. varsoviensis from the river sections where it was previously found.

Keywords:

Dikerogammarus villosus, Gammarus varsoviensis, native and invasive alien amphipods laboratory experiment amphipod feeding food selectivity predation 

Notes

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are grateful to Corresponding Member of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus, Professor V.P. Semenchenko (head of the Laboratory of Hydrobiology, Scientific and Practical Center for Bioresources of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus) for valuable advice during the planning of the experiment and writing the article, as well as to the reviewer for valuable comments that allowed us to improve the text of the article.

FUNDING

This study was financially supported by the Belarusian Republican Foundation for Fundamental Research (project no. B17M-019 of April 18, 2017).

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

STATEMENT ON THE WELFARE OF ANIMALS

All experimental protocols were carried out in accordance with EU Directive 86/609/EEC on the Protection of Animals Used for Experimental and Other Scientific Purposes and according to the rules approved by the Order of the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences of April 2, 1980, no. 12000-496 and the order of the USSR Ministry of Higher Education of September 13, 1984, no. 22. All efforts were undertaken to use only the minimum number of animals necessary to obtain reliable scientific data.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    Arbačiauskas, K., Amphipods of the Nemunas River and the Curonian Lagoon, the Baltic Sea basin: where and which native freshwater amphipods persist?, Acta Zool. Lituan., 2008, no. 18, pp. 10–16.  https://doi.org/10.2478/v10043-008-0002-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arbačiauskas, K., Ataskaita “Europos bendrijos svarbos rusiu bukles ir invaziniu augalu ir gyvunu rusiu tyrimu atlikimo paslaugos, Technines specifikacijos XI dallies, 2014–2015 metais įvertinti ir prognozuoti šių invazinių bestuburių gyvū nų rū šių—kietašarvės šoniplaukos (Pontogammarus robustoides), ežerinės mizidės (Paramysis lacustris)—paplitimo ir gausumo parametrus bei ju pokycius,” Sutartis Nr. 28TP-2014-90-ES (2014.10.29), 2015.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arbačiauskas, K., Višinskienė, G., and Smilgevičienė, S., Non-indigenous macroinvertebrate species in Lithuanian fresh waters. Part 1: Distributions, dispersal and future, Knowl. Manag. Aquat. Ecosyst., 2011, no. 402, p. 12.  https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2011075
  4. 4.
    Barkov, D.V. and Kurashov, E.A., Selectivity of nutrition, digestibility of food and nutritional needs of the Baikal invader Gmelinoides fasciatus (Stebbing, 1899) in Lake Ladoga, Biol. Vnutr. Vod, 2011, no. 4, pp. 58–63.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bij de Vaate, A. and Klink, A., Dikerogammarus villosus Sowinski (Crustacea: Gammaridae) a new immigrant in the Dutch part of the Lower Rhine, Lauterbornia, 1995, no. 20, pp. 51–54.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bij de Vaate, A., Jazdzewski, K., Ketelaars, H.A.M., et al., Geographical patterns in range extension of Ponto-Caspian macroinvertebrate species in Europe, Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 2002, no. 59, pp. 1159–1174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bollache, L., Devin, S., Wattier, R.A., et al., Rapid range extension of the Ponto-Caspian amphipod Dikerogammarus villosus (Crustacea, Amphipoda) in France: potential consequences, Arch. Hydrobiol., 2004, no. 160, pp. 57–66.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Borza, P., Huber, T., Leitner, P., et al., How to coexist with the “killer shrimp” Dikerogammarus villosus? Lessons from other invasive Ponto-Caspian peracarids, Aquat. Conserv., Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst., 2018, no. 28, pp. 1441–1450.  https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2985 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chesson, J., The estimation and analysis of preference and its relationship to foraging models, Ecology, 1983, vol. 64, no. 5, pp. 1297–1304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Copilaş-Ciocianu, D., and Arbačiauskas, K., First record of Dikerogammarus bispinosus Martynov, 1925 in Kazakhstan: invasive or overlooked native in the Caspian Sea basin? BioInvasions Rec., 2018, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 285–291.  https://doi.org/10.3391/bir.2018.7.3.09 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Devin, S. and Beisel, J.-N., Biological and ecological characteristics of invasive species: a gammarid study, Biol. Invasions, 2007, no. 9, pp. 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dick, J.T.A. and Platvoet, D., Invading predatory crustacean Dikerogammarus villosus eliminates both native and exotic species, Proc. R. Soc. Lond., 2000, no. 267, pp. 977–983.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2000.1099 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dick, J.T.A., Platvoet, D., and Kelly, D.W., Predatory impact of the freshwater invader Dikerogammarus villosus (Crustacea: Amphipoda), Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 2002, no. 59, pp. 1078–1084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dodd, J.A., Dick, J.T.A., Alexander, M.E., et al., Predicting the ecological impacts of a new freshwater invader: functional responses and prey selectivity of the “killer shrimp,” Dikerogammarus villosus, compared to the native Gammarus pulex,Freshw. Biol., 2014, no. 59, pp. 337–352.  https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.12268 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dumnicka, E., Konopacka, A., and Ż urek, R., Changes in the benthic fauna composition in the Upper Vistula over the last 50 years—the consequences of the water pollution reduction and alien species invasion, Int. J. Oceanogr. Hydrobiol., 2018, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 303–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Elliott, J.M., The drift distances and time spent in the drift by freshwater shrimps, Gammarus pulex, in a small stony stream, and their implications for the interpretation of downstream dispersal, Freshw. Biol., 2002, vol. 47, no. 8, pp. 1403–1417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Grabowski, M., Bą cela, K., and Konopacka, A., How to be an invasive gammarid (Amphipoda: Gammaroidea)—comparison of life history traits, Hydrobiologia, 2007, no. 590, pp. 75–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Grabowski, M., Jaż dżewski, K., and Konopacka, A., Alien Crustacea in Polish waters—Amphipoda, Aquat. Invasions, 2007, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 25–38. http://www.academia.edu/396529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Grabowski, M., Mamos, T., Rewicz, T., et al., Gammarus varsoviensis Jazdzewski, 1975 (Amphipoda, Gammaridae): a long overlooked species in Ukrainian rivers, North-West. J. Zool., 2012a, vol. 8, no. 1: 121201.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Grabowski, M., Rewicz, T., Konopacka, A., et al., Cryptic invasion of Baltic lowlands by freshwater amphipod of Pontic origin, Aquat. Invasions, 2012b, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 337–346.  https://doi.org/10.3391/ai.2012.7.3.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hellmann, C., Schöll, F., Worischka, S., Becker, J., and Winkelmann, C., River-specific effects of the invasive amphipod Dikerogammarus villosus (Crustacea: Amphipoda) on benthic communities, Biol. Invasions, 2017, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 381–398.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-016-1286-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hellmann, C., Worischka, S., Mehler, E., et al., The trophic function of Dikerogammarus villosus (Sowinsky, 1894) in invaded rivers: a case study in the Elbe and Rhine, Aquat. Invasions, 2015, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 385–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    IUCN guidelines for the prevention of biodiversity loss caused by alien invasive species, The 51st Meet. IUCN, Council Species Survival Commission, IUCN, 2000.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jazdzewski, K., Remarks on Gammarus lacustris G. O. Sars, 1863, with description of Gammarus varsoviensis n. sp. (Crustacea, Amphipoda), Bijd. Dierkunde, 1975, no. 45, pp. 71–86.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Karatayev, A.Y., Mastitsky, S.E., Burlakova, L.E., et al., Past, current, and future of the central European corridor for aquatic invasions in Belarus, Biol. Invasions, 2008, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 215–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kinzelbach, R., Neozoans in European waters—exemplifying the worldwide process of invasion and species mixing, Cell. Mol. Life Sci., 1995, vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 526–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kinzler, W., Kley, A., Maier, G., et al., Mutual predation between and cannibalism within several freshwater gammarids: Dikerogammarus villosus versus one native and three invasives, Aquat. Ecol., 2009, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 457–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kley, A. and Maier, G., Life history characteristics of the invasive freshwater gammarids Dikerogammarus villosus and Echinogammarus ischnus in the River Main and the Main-Donau canal, Arch. Hydrobiol., 2003, vol. 156, no. 4, pp. 457–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kley, A. and Maier, G., An example of niche partitioning between Dikerogammarus villosus and other invasive and native gammarids: a field study, J. Limnol., 2005, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 85–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Koester, M. and Gergs, R., No evidence for intraguild predation of Dikerogammarus villosus (Sowinsky, 1894) at an invasion front in the Untere Lorze, Switzerland, Aquat. Invasions, 2014, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 489–497.  https://doi.org/10.3391/ai.2014.9.4.07 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Koester, M., Schneider, M., Hellmann, C., et al., Is the invasive amphipod Dikerogammarus villosus the main factor structuring the benthic community across different types of water bodies in the River Rhine system? Limnologica, 2018, vol. 71, pp. 44–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.limno.2018.06.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Konopacka, A., Life history of Gammarus varsoviensis Jazdzewski, 1975 from Kampinoski National Park (Central Poland), Zool. Pol., 1988, vol. 35, nos. 1–4, pp. 165–177.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Krisp, H. and Maier, G., Consumption of macroinvertebrates by invasive and native gammarids: a comparison, J. Limnol., 2005, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 55–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Leppakoski, E., Gollasch, S., and Olenin, S., Invasive Aquatic Species of Europe Distribution, Impacts and Management, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2002.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9956-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lipinskaya, T. and Radulovici, A., DNA barcoding of alien Ponto-Caspian amphipods from the Belarusian part of the Central European invasion corridor, Genome, 2017, vol. 60, no. 11, pp. 963–964.  https://doi.org/10.1139/gen-2017-0178 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lipinskaya, T., Radulovici, A., and Makaranka, A., First DNA-barcoding based record of Echinogammarus trichiatus (Martynov, 1932) (Crustacea, Gammaridae) in Belarus, BioInvasions Rec., 2018, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 55–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    MacNeil, C., Dick, J.T.A., Elwood, R.W., et al., The trophic ecology of freshwater Gammarus (Crustacea: Amphipoda); problems and perspectives concerning the functional feeding group concept, Biol. Rev., 1997, vol. 72, no. 3, pp. 349–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    MacNeil, C., Platvoet, D., Dick, J.T.A., et al., The Ponto-Caspian ‘killer shrimp’, Dikerogammarus villosus (Sowinsky, 1894), invades the British Isles, Aquat. Invasions, 2010, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 441–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Makarenko, A.I., Dimensional characteristics of alien and native species of amphipods in Belarus, Vesti Nats. Akad. Nauk Belarusi, 2015, no. 1, pp. 100–105.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Makarenko, A.I. and Vezhnovets, V.V., Modern distribution of alien and native species of the Amphipoda latreille, 1816 in Belarus, Vesti Nats. Akad. Nauk Belarusi, 2014, no. 4, pp. 95–99.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Makarenko, A.I. and Vezhnovets, V.V., Biotopic confinement of alien and native species of crustaceans (Amphipoda, Crustacea) in the water bodies of Belarus, Zh. Beloruss. Gos. Univ., Ser. Ekol., 2018, no. 4, pp. 29–41.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mastitsky, S.E. and Makarevich, O.A., Distribution and abundance of Ponto-Caspian amphipods in the Belarusian section of the Dnieper River, Aquat. Invasions, 2007, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 39–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Monakov, V.A., Nutrition of freshwater invertebrates, in Bokoplavy (Amphipoda), Monakov, V.A. and Strelkov, A.A., Eds., Moscow, 1998, pp. 188–193.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Monakov, A.V., Feeding of Freshwater Invertebrates, Ghent: Kenobi Productions, 2003.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Rewicz, T., Wattier, R., Grabowski, M., et al., Out of the Black Sea: phylogeography of the invasive killer shrimp Dikerogammarus villosus across Europe, PLoS One, 2015, vol. 10, no. 2: e0118121. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118121 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sala, O.E., Chapin, F.S., Armesto, J.J., et al., Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100, Science, 2000, vol. 287, no. 5459, pp. 1770–1774.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.287.54.59.1770 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Semenchenko, V.P., Vezhnovets, V.V., and Lipinskaya, T.P., Alien species of Ponto-Caspian amphipods (Crustacea, Amphipoda) in the Dnieper River basin (Belarus), Russ. J. Biol. Invasions, 2013, vol. 4, pp. 269–275.  https://doi.org/10.1134/S2075111713040097 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Semenchenko, V.P., Rizevsky, V.K., Mastitsky, S.E., et al., Checklist of aquatic alien species established in large river basins of Belarus, Aquat. Invasions, 2009, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 337–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Semenchenko, V., Son, M.O., Novitski, R., et al., Checklist of non-native benthic macroinvertebrates and fish in the Dnieper River basin, BioInvasions Rec., 2016, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 185–187.  https://doi.org/10.3391/bir.2016.5.3.10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Šidagyt\({\dot {e}}\), E., Solovjova, S., Šniaukštait\({\dot {e}}\), V., et al., The killer shrimp Dikerogammarus villosus (Crustacea, Amphipoda) invades Lithuanian waters, South-Eastern Baltic Sea, Oceanologia, 2017, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 85–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceano.2016.08.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Stoffels, B.E.M.W., Tummers, J.G., van der Velde, G., et al., Assessment of predatory ability of native and non-native freshwater gammarideans: a rapid test with water fleas as prey, Curr. Zool., 2011, vol. 57, no. 6, pp. 836–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Van der Velde, G., Leuven, R.S.E.W., Platvoet, D., et al., Factors influencing predatory behaviour in an invasive gammaridean species, Dikerogammarus villosus and some related species, Biol. Invasions, 2009, vol. 11, no. 9, pp. 2043–2054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Van der Velde, G., Rajagopal, S., Kelleher, B., et al., Ecological impact of crustacean invaders: general considerations and examples from the Rhine River, Proc. Fourth Int. Crustacean Congr., Rotterdam: Balkema, 2000, pp. 3–34.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Van Riel, M.C., van der Velde, G., Rajagopal, S., et al., Trophic relationships in the Rhine food web during invasion and after establishment of the Ponto-Caspian invader Dikerogammarus villosus,Hydrobiologia, 2006, vol. 565, no. 1, pp. 39–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Scientific and Practical Center for Bioresources, National Academy of Sciences of BelarusMinskBelarus

Personalised recommendations