2000
DOI: 10.3354/meps201233
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Food patches and a surface deposit feeding spionid polychaete

Abstract: Surface deposit feeders live in an environment in which nutritional states change rapidly due to flux of surface material. This project addressed the question of foraging choice by a common spionid deposit feeder, Streblospio benedicti. Individuals of S. benedicti were offered both organically enriched sediment and unaltered sediment simultaneously as feeding choices. Three organic conditions along with the worms' natural sediment were employed in the choice experiments. The natural sediment had an organic con… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
20
1
1

Year Published

2002
2002
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 45 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
0
20
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Orbinidae and Capitellidae are sub-surface deposit feeders (Fauchald & Jumars 1979), which can easily feed on sediment modified by the wrack. Moreover, surface deposit feeders are not bulk ingestors of surface sediments, but rather they modify their behaviour and can choose to feed on enriched sediments at small spatial scales (Kihslinger & Woodin 2000). Therefore, plant detritus under the sediment would attract these animals either by directly providing food or by enhancing the growth of other types of food.…”
Section: Response Of Macrofaunal Assemblagesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Orbinidae and Capitellidae are sub-surface deposit feeders (Fauchald & Jumars 1979), which can easily feed on sediment modified by the wrack. Moreover, surface deposit feeders are not bulk ingestors of surface sediments, but rather they modify their behaviour and can choose to feed on enriched sediments at small spatial scales (Kihslinger & Woodin 2000). Therefore, plant detritus under the sediment would attract these animals either by directly providing food or by enhancing the growth of other types of food.…”
Section: Response Of Macrofaunal Assemblagesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Because growth and reproduction are often food limited (Wilson 1985, Riisgard et al 1996, Rossi & Lardicci 2002, animals' responses to variations in food supply may be important determinants of fitness. Suspension feeders and interface feeders (which switch between suspension feeding and deposit feeding at the sediment-water interface) are known to respond to fluctuations or patchiness of food in a variety of ways, including behavioral (Taghon et al 1980, Dauer et al 1981, Jordana et al 2000, Kihslinger & Woodin 2000 and physiological adjustments (Bayne 1993, Riisgard & Larsen 2000, Velasco & Navarro 2002, Ward et al 2003.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Ciliated cells underlie several annelid sensory modalities (including vision, mechanoreception, and chemoreception) that are processed by the central nervous system (Mill, 1978). Among these senses, chemoreception modulates a variety of ecologically important behaviors including spawning (Hardege et al, 1996;Hardege and Bentley, 1997;Hardege, 1999), possibly spermataphore transfer in spionids (Rice, 1978(Rice, , 1991, larval settlement (reviewed by Qian, 1999), juvenile postsettlement movement (Woodin et al, 1995), and feeding (Copeland and Weiman, 1924;Rullier, 1950;Ferner and Jumars, 1999;Kihslinger and Woodin, 2000;Riordan and Lindsay, 2002;Mahon and Dauer, 2005).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%