Field comparison of survival and growth of hatchery-reared versus wild blue crabs, Callinectes sapidus Rathbun

Johnson, Eric; Young, Alicia C.; Hines, Anson H.; Kramer, Margaret A.; Bademan, Martha; Goodison, Michael R.; Aguilar, Robert

doi:10.1016/j.jembe.2011.03.013

Cited by 11 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The average CW in each trial did not differ among treatments (KruskalWallis test statistic = 22.1, p = 0.139). In the field, predation rates on hatchery crabs are the same as those on wild crabs, so the use of hatchery crabs is not expected to bias our results (Johnson et al 2011).…”

Section: Laboratory Setupmentioning

confidence: 89%

Density-dependent indirect effects: apparent mutualism and apparent competition coexist in a two-prey system

Long¹,

Gamelin²,

Johnson³

et al. 2012

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A predator consuming multiple prey species usually causes indirect effects. Apparent mutualism results when multiple prey species reduce predation risk for each other by altering a predator's functional response. Short-term apparent competition occurs when multiple prey species increase predation risks for each other through the numerical response, i.e. increasing the predator's birth rate, or aggregative response, i.e. attracting a higher density of predators. Our objectives in this study were to determine the aggregative response and 2-prey functional response of a predator and to examine indirect effects over a range of prey densities. We used the clam Macoma balthica and juvenile blue crabs Callinectes sapidus as prey for adult blue crabs. In laboratory experiments, we determined the single-prey functional responses of the crabs to each prey species and the 2-prey functional response. We combined the 2-prey functional response with the known blue crab aggregative response to clams to estimate field predation rates. Our model predicts that at low prey densities, clams and juvenile blue crabs exhibit apparent mutualism, whereas at high clam densities, this relation switches to short-term apparent competition. These unexpected results highlight the need to incorporate multiple aspects of predation at multiple scales when considering indirect effects.KEY WORDS: Predator-prey interactions · Functional response · Indirect effects · Blue crab · Macoma balthicaResale or republication not permitted without written consent of the publisher Mar Ecol Prog Ser 456: 139-148, 2012 increases the predator density (i.e. changes either the predator's numerical or aggregative response), thus increasing predation on the other species (Holt & Lawton 1994). This occurs either through increasing the predator population growth rate (Settle et al. 1996, Carvalheiro et al. 2008 or through a local increase in predator density due to predator movement (Holt & Kotler 1987, Brown & Mitchell 1989, Murakami & Nakano 2002. Study organismsThe blue crab Callinectes sapidus Rathbun, 1896, is an important benthic predator in Chesapeake Bay (Virnstein 1977). Large adult crabs are opportunistic omnivores, feeding primarily on bivalves (~50% of diet) and crustaceans (~30%) as well as fish and polychaetes (Hines et al. 1990). Blue crabs are cannibalistic, with adults feeding on juveniles (Hines & Ruiz 1995). Because cannibalism represents a major source of mortality for juvenile blue crabs, juveniles congregate in shallow waters (<1 m), where adults are less abundant (Hines & Ruiz 1995, and in structured habitats that provide a predation refuge (Everett & Ruiz 1993).Macoma balthica Linnaeus, 1758, is a small (shell length < 40 mm) tellinid clam that is the dominant biomass in unvegetated mud habitats within the mesohaline regions of Chesapeake Bay (Holland et al. 1977) and is a major source of food for blue crabs (Baird & Ulanowicz 1989). M. balthica avoids predation by burying deeply, up to 35 cm, in the sediment (Hines & Comtois 1985)...

show abstract

Section: Laboratory Setupmentioning

confidence: 89%

Density-dependent indirect effects: apparent mutualism and apparent competition coexist in a two-prey system

Long¹,

Gamelin²,

Johnson³

et al. 2012

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Crabs were deployed and checked in approximately the same order each day so while they were deployed and checked at different points during the day and tidal cycle, they were each checked after about 24 h of deployment and experienced the same number of tidal cycles. Survival of wild and hatchery crabs does not differ in tethering experiments (Johnson et al 2011).…”

Section: Predation Risk and Predator Abundancementioning

confidence: 91%

Effects of anthropogenic shoreline hardening and invasion by Phragmites australis on habitat quality for juvenile blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus)

Long

Grow

Majoris

et al. 2011

Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Likewise, survival of hatchery blue crabs, Callinectes sapidus¸ matches the survival of wild blue crabs of the same size in the same habitat (Johnson et al 2011). This is evidence that stock enhancement is an ecologically viable mechanism for restoring red king crab populations in Kodiak.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 68%

How does stocking density affect enhancement success for hatchery-reared red king crab?

Long

Cummiskey

Munk

2018

Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stock enhancement of red king crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus (Tilesius, 1815)) could increase the crab population near Kodiak, Alaska, which collapsed in the 1980s and has not recovered. We conducted a field experiment examining the effect of juvenile red king crab density on enhancement success. Hatchery-reared crabs were released in plots near Kodiak at three densities: 25, 50, and 75 m−2. Crab densities were monitored for 6 months after release. Predation risk was measured via tethering experiments and predator density via quadrat and transect surveys. Neither migration nor mortality changed with crab density, but mortality rates decreased over time. Crab density did not affect predator density or predation risk, although predation risk decreased with time. Excluding the high initial mortality rate of 67.5%, the predicted survival after 6 months was 34%, which is better than the survival observed in a wild population. This suggests that red king crab enhancement is not predation limited and can occur at high densities. Further, processes affecting juvenile red king crab may not be strongly density dependent, at least at the scales and habitats tested.

show abstract

Field comparison of survival and growth of hatchery-reared versus wild blue crabs, Callinectes sapidus Rathbun

Cited by 11 publications

References 55 publications

Density-dependent indirect effects: apparent mutualism and apparent competition coexist in a two-prey system

Density-dependent indirect effects: apparent mutualism and apparent competition coexist in a two-prey system

Effects of anthropogenic shoreline hardening and invasion by Phragmites australis on habitat quality for juvenile blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus)

How does stocking density affect enhancement success for hatchery-reared red king crab?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About