Ecology, functional morphology, behaviour, and feeding in coral- and sponge-boring species of <i>Upogebia</i> (Crustacea: Decapoda: Thalassinidea)

214

179

A large number of suspension-feeding aquatic animals (e.g. bivalves, polychaetes, ascidians, bryozoans, crustaceans, sponges, echinoderms, cnidarians) have specialized in grazing on not only the 2 to 200 µm phytoplankton but frequently also the 0.5 to 2 µm free-living bacteria, or they have specialized in capturing larger prey, e.g. zooplankton organisms. We review the different particle capture mechanisms in order to illustrate the many solutions to the common problem of obtaining nourishment from a dilute suspension of microscopic food particles. Despite the many differences in morphology and living conditions, particle capture mechanisms may be divided into 2 main types. (1) Filtering or sieving (e.g. through mucus nets, stiff cilia, filter setae), which is found in passive suspension feeders that rely on external currents to bring suspended particles to the filter, and in active suspension feeders that themselves produce a feeding flow by a variety of pump systems. Here the inventiveness of nature does not lie in the capture mechanism but in the type of pump system and filter pore-size. (2) A paddle-like flow manipulating system (e.g. cilia, cirri, tentacles, hair-bearing appendages) that acts to redirect an approaching suspended particle, often along with a surrounding 'fluid parcel', to a strategic location for arrest or further transport. Examples include (1) sieving (e.g. by microvilli in sponge choanocytes, mucus nets in polychaetes, acidians, and salps among others), filter setae in crustaceans, 'ciliary sieving' by stiff laterofrontal cilia in bryozoans and phoronids; and (2) 'cirri trapping' in mussels and other bivalves with eu-laterofrontal cirri, ciliary 'catch-up' in bivalve and gastropod veliger larvae, some polychaetes, entroprocts, and cycliophores. These capture mechanisms may involve contact with a particle, and possibly mechanoreception or chemoreception, or may include redirection of particles by the interaction of multiple currents (e.g. in scallops and other bivalves without eu-laterofrontal cirri). Based on the review, we discuss the current physical and biological understanding of the capture process and suggest a number of specific problems related to particle capture, which may be solved in the future using advanced theoretical, computational and experimental techniques.

Section: Decapodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Particle capture mechanisms in suspension-feeding invertebrates

Riisgård¹,

Larsen²

2010

214

179

“…Unlike Type 5 burrows, however, Type 6 burrows usually have 2 'U'-shaped tubes connected near the bottom of the 'U', and the tube shafts are widened into small chambers which connect to the exterior through small, constricted holes (Kleemann 1984, Scott et al 1988). Short, dead-end chambers branch from the central 'U'-shaped tubes, and the burrow diameter is large enough to permit individuals to reverse direction anywhere in the burrow.…”

Section: -mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Short, dead-end chambers branch from the central 'U'-shaped tubes, and the burrow diameter is large enough to permit individuals to reverse direction anywhere in the burrow. These burrows are constructed exclusively within living corals (frequently of the genus Porites) and sponges (frequently of the genus Agelas) by Upoqebia species which have morphological, behavioral, and possibly chemical characteristics that facilitate burrowing in these relatively hard substrata (Williams 1987, Scott et al 1988, Williams & Scott 1989. Type 6 burrows are lined with a mixture of organic mud, detritus, and small chips of calcium carbonate (Scott et al 1988).…”

Section: -mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The shallow, U'-shaped tubes of Type 5 and 6 burrows provide efficient paths for unidirectional flow, through which Upogebia species capture suspended particles with specialized, setae-covered appendages (MacGinitie 1930, Schaefer 1970, Thompson 1972, Powell 1974, Dworschak 1987, Scott et al 1988). Variation in feeding mode does exist among species within the group, however.…”

Section: -mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A model of burrow architecture and trophic modes in thalassinidean shrimp (Decapoda: Thalassinidea)

Griffis¹,

Suchanek²

1991

238

147

Thalassinidean shrimp construct species-specific burrows which vary in morphology from simple 'U' or 'Y' shaped tubes to more complex tiers of galleries or reticulate branches. Data on the burrow architecture of 44 species in 10 genera indicates that the morphological patterns of thalassinidean burrows are more diverse than previously recognized. Based on a review of these data and the existing information on thalassinidean feeding, we propose several generalizations in the form of a heuristic model relating burrow architecture and trophic mode in these fossorial decapods. Despite moderate levels of morphological variation between species, thalassinidean burrows can be categorized into 6 major groups based on their morphological characteristics The 6 burrow types are distinguishable based on the presence or absence of (1) surface sediment mounds at excurrent openings, (2) seagrasses in chambers or the burrow lining, and (3) a simple 'U' shaped burrow design. Although relatively little is known about the functional significance of the different architectural patterns, each burrow type may be indicative of one of the 3 general trophic modes utilized by burrowing shrimp: (1) deposit feeding, (2) drift catching, and (3) filter/suspension feeding. Two different types of burrows are discernible within the mound-producing, deposit-feeding group, 3 distinct burrow morphotypes are associated with filter/suspension feeding, and the 6th burrow morphotype is produced by the drift catchers. The ecological significance of these 6 burrow types is discussed in addition to the effects of various environmental parameters on mtraspecific variation in burrow morphology.

“…Some species excavate hard substrate, but most species prefer sediments (Scott et al 1988). The Callianassidae are almost completely confined to marine soft sediments (de Vaugelas 1985, Grlffis & Suchanek 1991.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Burrow architecture and turbative activity of the thalassinid shrimp Callianassa subterranea from the central North Sea

Stamhuis

Schreurs²,

Videler

1997

The architecture and development of the burrows of the endobenthic shrimp Callianassa subterranea from the central North Sea were studied in sediment-filled containers and thln cuvettes in the laboratory. Three-dimens~onal burrows of 81 shrlmps were used to describe the 3-dimensional burrow architecture. In total, 41 shrimps made 2-dimensional burro\vs in cuvettes tailored to their body widths. Development of 8 burrows over time was registered by regularly mapping burrow outllnes and sediment surface levels. Excavation velocities and s e d~m e n t expulsion rates were denved from changes in the burrow outlines and sediment surface levels on the maps The total tunnel length increased at a rate of 23.4 + 6 0 mm h-' durlng the initial stage of bul-row development. The length ~ncl-ease levelled off during the completion of the first and second U-tubes to 5.6 r 1.8 mm h-' In~tial sediment expulsion rates up to 15 0 cm3 d.' were established. The average sedim~.nt expulsion rate was 1.080 t 0.096 cm" d.' Extrapolation to a yearly dry welght (dry I\?) sediment turnover, including population density and water temperature effects, resulted in an estimate of 15.5 + 2.7 kg dry wt m-' yr-l, equivalent to d 1.2 cm layer. Samples of burrow lining, expelled sediment and unprocessed sediment did not show changes in grain size distributions or organic content due to manipulation or processing by C. subterranea. Burrow development experiments carried out in enriched seawater systems did not reveal consistent effects of particulate organic matter (POM) on sediment expulsion rates or on the composition of processed or unprocessed sediment.