Skip to main content
Log in

The encrusting spongeHalisarca laxus: population genetics and association with the ascidianPyura spinifera

  • Published:
Marine Biology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The encrusting spongeHalisarca laxus forms a seemingly obligate association with the stalked solitary ascidianPyura spinifera. In 1991 we examined spatial variation and short-term temporal variation in this association at three neighbouring sites in southeastern Australia. This sponge dominated the surface of almost all the 500 individual ascidians examined, with mean cover usually exceeding 90%. This pattern was consistent among sites and throughout the year of the study. The domination of a small isolated patch of habitable substratum by a sponge is most unusual, given that they are regarded as relatively poor recruiters. To understand how this association might be maintained, we determined the underlying genotypic diversity of the sponge population using starch-gel electrophoresis.P. spinifera is a clump-forming ascidian and usually occurs in clumps of up to 22 individuals. Electrophoretic surveys, based on six variable allozyme loci, revealed that at a total of five plots within three neighbouring New South Wales populations, single sponge genotypes may cover entire ascidian clumps; although a clump sometimes played host to more than one sponge clone. Allele frequencies (averaged across four loci that appear to conform to Mendelian inheritance) showed little variation among populations (standardised genetic variance,F ST=0.013). Nevertheless, sponge populations were genotypically diverse, with samples from 63 of 172 individual clumps displaying unique “clonal” genotypes. Moreover, multi-locus genotypic diversity within all sites approached the level expected for sexual reproduction with random mating. Taken together, these data imply thatH. laxus produces sexually-derived larvae that are at least moderately widelly dispersed. Given the relatively small size of the patches that this sponge inhabits, we also conclude that these larvae are good colonists and good spatial competitors on their ascidian hosts.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ayre DJ, Read J, Wishart J (1991) Genetic subdivision within the eastern Australian population of the sea anemoneActinia tenebrosa. Mar Biol 109: 379–390

    Google Scholar 

  • Battershill CN, Bergquist PR (1990) The influence of storms on asexual reproduction, recruitment and survivorship of sponges. In: Rutzler K (ed) New perspectives in sponge biology. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC, pp 397–403

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergquist PR (1978) Sponges. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergquist PR (1995) Dictyoceratida, Dendroceratida and Verongida from the New Caledonian Lagoon (Porifera: Demospongia). Mem Qd Mus 38: 1–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtis ASG, Kerr J, Knowlton N (1982) Graft rejection in sponges. Transplantation 33: 127–133

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis AR (1996) Association among ascidians: facilitation of recruitment inPyura spinifera. Mar Biol 126: 35–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis AR, White GA (1994) Epibiosis in a guild of sessile subtidal invertebrates in south-eastern Australia: a quantitative survey. J exp mar Biol Ecol 177: 1–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Grosberg RK (1987) Limited dispersal and proximity dependent mating success in the colonial ascidianBotryllus schlosseri. Evolution 41: 372–384

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris H, Hopkinson DA (1976) Handbook of electrophoresis in human genetics. North-Holland, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Heyward AJ, Stoddart JA (1985) Genetic structure of two species ofMontipora on a patch reef: conflicting results from electrophoresis and histocompatibility. Mar Biol 85: 117–121

    Google Scholar 

  • Hidaka M (1985) Tissue compatibility between colonies and between newly settled larvae ofPocillopora damicornis. Coral Reefs 4: 111–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoshino T (1990)Merlia tenuis n. sp. encrusting shell surfaces of gastropods,Chicoreus, from Japan. In: Rutzler K (ed) New perspectives in sponge biology. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC, pp 295–301

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt A (1993) Effects of contrasting patterns of larval dispersal on the genetic connectedness of local populations of two intertidal starfish,Patiriella calcar andP. exigua. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 92: 179–186

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt A, Ayre DJ (1989) Population structure in the sexually reproducing sea anemoneOulactis muscosa. Mar Biol 102: 537–544

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson JBC, Buss L (1975) Allelopathy and spatial competition among coral reef invertebrates. Proc natn Acad Sci USA 72: 5160–5163

    Google Scholar 

  • Kay AM, Butler AJ (1983) “Stability” of the fouling communities on the pilings of two piers in South Australia. Oecologia 56: 70–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Keough MJ (1984) Effects of patch size on the abundance of sessile marine invertebrates. Ecology 65: 423–437

    Google Scholar 

  • Kott P (1985) The Australian Ascidiacea. Part 1. Phlebobranchia and Stolidobranchia. Mem Qd Mus 23: 1–440

    Google Scholar 

  • Neigel JE, Avise JC (1985) The precision of histocompatibility response in clonal recognition in tropical marine sponges. Evolution 39: 724–732

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitcher CR, Butler AJ (1987) Predation by asteroids, escape response, and morphometrics of scallops with epizoic sponges. J exp mar Biol Ecol 112: 233–249

    Google Scholar 

  • Resing JM, Ayre DJ (1985) The usefulness of the tissue grafting bioassay as an indicator of clonal identity in scleractinian corals. Proc 5th int coral Reef Congr 6: 75–81 [Gabrié et al. (eds) Antenne Museum-EPHE, Moorea, French Polynesia]

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson BJ, Baverstock PR, Adams M (1986) Allozyme electrophoresis: a handbook for animal systematics and population studies. Academic Press, Sydney

    Google Scholar 

  • Rinkevich B, Weissman IL (1989) Variation in the outcomes following chimera formation in the colonial tunicateBotryllus schlosseri. Bull mar Sci 45: 213–227

    Google Scholar 

  • Russ RG (1982) Overgrowth in a marine epifaunal community: competitive hierarchies and competitive networks. Oecologia 53: 12–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Sebens KP, Thorne BL (1985) Coexistence of clones, clonal diversity, and effects of disturbance. In: Jackson JBC, Buss LW, Cook RE (eds) Population biology and evolution of clonal organisms. Yale University Press, New Haven, pp 357–398

    Google Scholar 

  • Selander RK, Smith MH, Yang YS, Johnson WB, Gentry JB (1971) Biochemical polymorphism and systematics in the genusPeromyscus. I. Variation in the old-field mouse (Peromyscus polionotus). Stud Genét, Austin, Tex 6: 49–90 (Univ Tex Publ No 7103)

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoddart JA, Taylor JF (1988) Genotypic diversity: estimation and prediction. Genetics, Austin, Tex 118: 705–711

    Google Scholar 

  • Swofford D, Selander RB (1981) BIOSYS-1: a FORTRAN program for the comprehensive analysis of electrophoretic data in population genetics and systematics. J Hered 72: 281–283

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson CC, Hebert PDN (1992) The maintenance of taxon diversity in an asexual assemblage: an experimental analysis. Ecology 73: 1462–1472

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright S (1978) Evolution and the genetics of populations. Vol 4. Variability within and among natural populations. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Communicated by: G. F. Humphrey, Sydney

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Davis, A.R., Ayre, D.J., Billingham, M.R. et al. The encrusting spongeHalisarca laxus: population genetics and association with the ascidianPyura spinifera . Mar. Biol. 126, 27–33 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00571374

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00571374

Keywords

Navigation