Behavioral interactions between the actinian <i>Tealia piscivora</i> (Anthozoa: Actiniaria) and the asteroid <i>Dermasterias imbricata</i>

Elliott, Joel K.; Dalby, J. E.; Cohen, R. R.; Ross, D. M.

doi:10.1139/z85-286

Cited by 10 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Lawn (1976) detected only SSI pulses and no TCNN or SS2 activity during Dermasterias-evoked swimming in S.coccinea. Source: drawn from data in Elliott et al (1985), and observations in Sebens (1983a) . processes into the mesoglea and toward the ectoderm (Robson, 1963; see also section 1.3, page 15). MLLW = mean lower low water.…”

Section: Predation By Sea Starsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Functional Biology of Sea Anemones

Shick¹

1991

249

198

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction only in accordance with the terms of the licences issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency in the UK, or in accordance with the terms of licences issued by the appropriate Reproduction Rights Organization outside the UK. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the terms stated here should be sent to the publishers at the UK address printed on this page.The publisher makes no representation, express or implied, with regard to the accuracy of the information contained in this book and cannot accept any legal responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions that may be made. British Library Cataloguing in Publication DataShick, J. Malcolm A functional biology of sea anemones. 1. Sea anemones I. Title II. Series 593.6 ISBN 978-94-010-5365-5 ISBN 978-94-011-3080-6 (eBook)

show abstract

Section: Predation By Sea Starsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Functional Biology of Sea Anemones

Shick¹

1991

249

198

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our research, like that of Weightman and Arsenault (2002), was performed at Bamfield Marine Station and published in the Canadian Journal of Zoology. The actinian Urticina (formerly Tealia) piscivora releases its pedal disc from the substratum when brought into contact with its asteroid predator Dermasterias imbricata, but shows no such response to 19 other nonpredatory species (Elliott et al 1985). Similarly, the actinian Stomphia didemon (formerly Actinostola sp.)…”

Section: [Traduit Par La Rédaction] Dalby and Elliott 558mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comment on "Predator classification by the sea penPtilosarcus gurneyi(Cnidaria): role of waterborne chemical cues and physical contact with predatory sea stars"

Dalby¹,

Elliott²

2003

Can. J. Zool.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In their study of behavioural responses of pennatulaceans to physical contact with asteroids in 2002, Weightman and Arsenault claim to be the first to demonstrate that cnidarians have the ability to distinguish predators from nonpredators. In fact, it has been known since at least the 1960s that cnidarians are capable of predator recognition. We briefly describe some of the abundant literature on this topic, especially studies on anthozoans.Résumé : Dans leur étude des comportements des pennatulacés en réaction à des contacts physiques avec des astéroï-des dans 2002, Weightman et Arsenault prétendent être les premiers à démontrer que les cnidaires sont capables de distinguer les prédateurs des organismes non prédateurs. En fait déjà dans les années 1960, et même avant, on savait les cnidaires capables de reconnaître des prédateurs. Nous décrivons brièvement une partie de l'abondante littérature disponible sur ce sujet, particulièrement les études portant sur les anthozoaires.[Traduit par la Rédaction] Dalby and Elliott 558

show abstract

“…Following receipt of Dalby and Elliott's comment highlighting a number of articles we had presumably overlooked, we repeated our database search, again using a variety of keywords: only Edmunds et al (1976), Elliott et al (1985), and Weightman and Arsenault (2002) were found. The study by Edmunds et al (1976) examined the response of 11 species of anemones to a single nudibranch predator.…”

Section: [Traduit Par La Rédaction] Weightman and Arsenault 561mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although interesting, this study did not examine whether these anemones were capable of predator classification. In contrast, the study by Elliott et al (1985) examined the defensive behaviour of 2 anemone species elicited by contact with 20 sea star species, as well as the response of 4 other anemone species to contact with the sea star Dermasterias imbricata. This study provides some evidence of predator-classification abilities in anemones (see the comment below) and would have been informative had it been included in our research note.…”

Section: [Traduit Par La Rédaction] Weightman and Arsenault 561mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For instance, the data from the studies of Elliott et al (1985) and Dalby et al (1988) indicate that there is high variability (even within a genus) in the ability of various anemones to (i) recognize and (ii) "correctly" classify their predators according to the relative threat they represent (e.g., some of the anemone species studied displayed intense defensive behaviours towards the herbivorous sea star Asterina miniata and none towards known predatory sea stars). Clearly, further studies of the predator-classification abilities (and chemosensory assessment of predation risk) of cnidarians are needed to better understand the phylogenetic origin of cnidarians and perhaps gain insight into the reasons behind the high degree of inconsistency in these abilities.…”

Section: [Traduit Par La Rédaction] Weightman and Arsenault 561mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reply to the comment by Dalby and Elliott on "Predator classification by the sea pen Ptilosarcus gurneyi (Cnidaria): role of waterborne chemical cues and physical contact with predatory sea stars"

Weightman¹,

Arsenault²

2003

Can. J. Zool.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The comment of Dalby and Elliott was triggered by a statement we made in a research note to the effect that our study provided the first experimental evidence of predator-classification abilities in cnidarians. Based on an extensive literature search and the appreciation of our manuscript by the reviewers, at the time of publication we believed that this statement was correct. After reviewing the research articles highlighted by Dalby and Elliott, we concur that the statement is incorrect. We discuss some possible reasons why the articles cited by the authors were not found during our literature search, including the use of technical "jargon". In formulating their comment, the authors make several incorrect assumptions, including (i) that our literature search was limited to a single broad review paper and (ii) that we overlooked key information in at least two of the papers we cited. Also, the authors appear to confound predator recognition and predator classification, as some of the articles they cite do not examine predatorclassification abilities. Finally, they give the impression that predator-classification abilities are ubiquitous in cnidarians. This appears to be an overstatement, since a number of published studies clearly indicate high variability in the ability of cnidarians to (i) recognize predators and (ii) respond "correctly" according to the relative threat they represent.Résumé : Le commentaire de Dalby et Elliott a été suscité par une affirmation que nous avons publiée dans une note à l'effet que notre recherche fournissait le premier compte-rendu publié de preuves expérimentales de la capacité des cnidaires de classifier leurs prédateurs. Après une recherche exhaustive de la littérature et l'appréciation de notre manuscrit par le comité de révision à l'époque de la publication, nous étions convaincus de la justesse de notre affirmation. Après consultation des articles cités par Dalby et Elliott, nous admettons que cette affirmation était erronée. Nous examinons les raisons qui peuvent expliquer pourquoi nous n'avons pas trouvé ces articles au cours de notre revue de la littérature, en particulier l'utilisation de « jargon » technique. Dans leur article, les auteurs posent plusieurs prémisses erronées, notamment (i) que nous n'avons consulté qu'un article général de synthèse sur le sujet et (ii) que nous avons omis de tenir compte d'informations importantes dans au moins deux des articles que nous citons. De plus, les auteurs semblent confondre reconnaissance des prédateurs et classification des prédateurs, puisque certains des articles qu'ils mentionnent ne traitent pas de la capacité des cnidaires de classifier les prédateurs. Enfin, ils donnent l'impression de considérer que la capacité de classifier des prédateurs est l'apanage de tous les cnidaires. Il s'agit là d'une généralisation exagérée puisque bon nombre d'articles font état de la variabilité importante dans la capacité des cnidaires (i) de reconnaître les prédateurs et (ii) de réagir « correctement » à la menace relative qu'ils repré...

show abstract

Behavioral interactions between the actinian Tealia piscivora (Anthozoa: Actiniaria) and the asteroid Dermasterias imbricata

Cited by 10 publications

References 4 publications

A Functional Biology of Sea Anemones

A Functional Biology of Sea Anemones

Comment on "Predator classification by the sea penPtilosarcus gurneyi(Cnidaria): role of waterborne chemical cues and physical contact with predatory sea stars"

Reply to the comment by Dalby and Elliott on "Predator classification by the sea pen Ptilosarcus gurneyi (Cnidaria): role of waterborne chemical cues and physical contact with predatory sea stars"

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About