Life-stage dependent, in situ dietary patterns of the lobate ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi Agassiz 1865

Rapoza, Rebecca C.; Novák, David; Costello, John H.

doi:10.1093/plankt/fbi065

Cited by 60 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…M. leidyi accomplishes this for small (40-200-μm length) prey with limited escape capacities, such as dinoflagellates, rotifers, and copepod nauplii, simply by directing entrained prey past highly efficient capture surfaces (18). However, in situ gut content data show that M. leidyi also effectively ingests larger copepods (approximately 1 mm in length) (20). The escape behavior of copepods relies on excellent detection of fluid deformation generated by approaching predators (21)(22)(23).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stealth predation and the predatory success of the invasive ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi

Colin

Costello

Hansson

et al. 2010

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In contrast to higher metazoans such as copepods and fish, ctenophores are a basal metazoan lineage possessing a relatively narrow set of sensory-motor capabilities. Yet lobate ctenophores can capture prey at rates comparable to sophisticated predatory copepods and fish, and they are capable of altering the composition of coastal planktonic communities. Here, we demonstrate that the predatory success of the lobate ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi lies in its use of cilia to generate a feeding current that continuously entrains large volumes of fluid, yet is virtually undetectable to its prey. This form of stealth predation enables M. leidyi to feed as a generalist predator capturing prey, including microplankton (approximately 50 μm), copepods (approximately 1 mm), and fish larvae (>3 mm). The efficacy and versatility of this stealth feeding mechanism has enabled M. leidyi to be notoriously destructive as a predator and successful as an invasive species.feeding current | flow | predator | prey | biological invasions T he planktonic predator, Mnemiopsis leidyi (Fig.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stealth predation and the predatory success of the invasive ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi

Colin

Costello

Hansson

et al. 2010

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Main 1928, Reeve & Walter 1978. This transition involves a shift from a micro-planktonic diet dominated by protists to a metazoan-based diet (Rapoza et al 2005). Cydippids feed with their long tentacles which may stretch several body lengths and possess a large number of branching tentillae off the main tentacles increasing the prey-capture surface area.…”

Section: Prey-capture Mechanisms Used By Ctenophoresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Swimming prey are ensnared in the tentillae by the release of colloblast filaments. Upon prey capture, the cydippid rapidly retracts the tentacle with the captured prey, manipulating it toward the mouth, whereas the second tentacle remains extended in the fishing position (Main 1928, Reeve & Walter 1978, Sullivan & Gifford 2004, Rapoza et al 2005, Waggett & Sullivan 2006.…”

Section: Prey-capture Mechanisms Used By Ctenophoresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Particle capture mechanisms in suspension-feeding invertebrates

Riisgård¹,

Larsen²

2010

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

214

179

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…have a lower trophic level than other scyphomedusae (Kohama et al, 2006;Brodeur et al, 2008b), indicating use of microplankton by this genus, which blooms in eutrophic waters around the world. Similarly, Mnemiopsis leidyi ctenophores bloom in eutrophic waters, and the diets of young ctenophores \ 1 cm length contain high percentages of microplankton (Sullivan & Gifford, 2004;Rapoza et al, 2006), although stable isotope analysis of large M. leidyi did not indicate extensive consumption of microplankton (Montoya et al, 1990). The interactions of pelagic cnidarians and ctenophores with microplankton communities generally have been seldom studied (except Pitt et al, 2007Pitt et al, , 2008b, and this may be especially important for the problem species Aurelia spp.…”

Section: Modeling Of Jellyfish Population Dynamics and Ecosystem Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Extension of methods for jellyfish and ctenophore trophic ecology to large-scale research

Purcell

2008

Hydrobiologia

159

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Science has rapidly expanded its frontiers with new technologies in the 20th Century. Oceanography now is studied routinely by satellite. Predictive models are on global scales. At the same time, blooms of jellyfish and ctenophores have become problematic, especially after 1980. Although we have learned a great deal about gelatinous zooplankton ecology in the 20th Century on local scales, we generally have not scaledup to estimate the extent, the causes, or effects of large blooms. In this age of global science, research on gelatinous zooplankton needs to utilize large-scale approaches and predictive equations. Some current techniques enable jellyfish populations (aerial, towed cameras), feeding (metabolic rates, stable isotopes), and dynamics (predictive modeling) to be studied over large spatial and temporal scales. I use examples of scyphomedusae (Aurelia spp., Cyanea capillata, Chrysaora quinquecirrha) and Mnemiopsis leidyi ctenophores, for which considerable data exist, to explore expanding from local to global scales of jellyfish trophic ecology. Regression analyses showed that feeding rates of Aurelia spp. (FR in copepods eaten medusa -1 d -1 ) generally could be estimated ±50% from in situ data on medusa wet weight (WW) and copepod density; temperature was not a significant factor. FR of C. capillata and C. quinquecirrha were similar to those of Aurelia spp.; the combined scyphomedusa regression underestimated measured FR of C. quinquecirrha and Aurelia spp. by 50% and 180%, respectively, and overestimated measured FR of C. capillata by 25%. Clearance rates (CR in liters cleared of copepods ctenophore -1 d -1 ) of M. leidyi were reduced in small containers (B20 l), and a ratio of container-volume to ctenophore-volume of at least 2,500:1 is recommended for feeding experiments. Clearance rates were significantly related to ctenophore WW, but not to prey density or temperature, and estimated rates within 10-159%. Respiration rates of medusae and ctenophores were similar across habitats with greatly ambient different temperatures (10-30°C), and can be predicted from regressions using only mass. These regressions may permit estimation of feeding effects of gelatinous predators without exhaustive collection of feeding data in situ. I recommend that data on feeding and metabolism of jellyfish and ctenophores be entered in a database to allow generalized predictive relationships to be developed to promote inclusion of these important predators in ecosystem studies and models.

show abstract

Life-stage dependent, in situ dietary patterns of the lobate ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi Agassiz 1865

Cited by 60 publications

References 32 publications

Stealth predation and the predatory success of the invasive ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi

Stealth predation and the predatory success of the invasive ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi

Particle capture mechanisms in suspension-feeding invertebrates

Extension of methods for jellyfish and ctenophore trophic ecology to large-scale research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About