Recruitment of a Tropical Colonial Ascidian: Relative Importance of Pre‐Settlement vs. Post‐Settlement Processes

Stoner, Douglas S.

doi:10.2307/1937577

Cited by 118 publications

(89 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Escape behaviors, chemical deterrents, and other defensive traits could cause rates of mortality to differ from rates of attack for prey species possessing these traits. However, we expect that the patterns we document would hold for zooplankton that have limited mobility and are commonly consumed by fishes, such as palatable tunicate or coral larvae (Olson & McPherson 1987, Stoner 1990, Lindquist & Hay 1996. Species that do not show increased mortality in high risk habitats would be obvious candidates for studies to discover the deterrent or behavioral traits diminishing their susceptibility to planktivorous fishes.…”

mentioning

confidence: 87%

Plankton tethering to assess spatial patterns of predation risk over a coral reef and seagrass bed

Bullard¹,

Hay²

2002

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Difficulties associated with manipulating plankton in situ have limited the ability of investigators to assess among-habitat variation in predation risk for plankton. We used plankton tethering units (PTUs) to tether zooplankton in a variety of reef and seagrass habitats, and used field and laboratory assays to test PTUs for tethering artifacts. Tethering did not affect the survivorship of 5 species of plankton (sizes <1 to 6 mm), indicating that the method works with a range of planktonic organisms. We then used the reef mysid Mysidium columbiae in additional assays and found that: (1) mysids remained on PTUs unless they were attacked by predators; (2) PTUs did not prevent planktivorous fishes from consuming tethered mysids; (3) untethered mysids commonly evaded predators, while mysids on PTUs did not; (4) the same types of predators consumed untethered and tethered mysids in the field; and (5) fishes were neither attracted to nor repelled from PTUs. We used PTUs and mysids to assess predation risk for plankton over various coral reef or seagrass habitats. Risk of attack varied among habitats and was correlated with abundance of planktivorous fishes. On the reef, attack rates were most intense over a topographically complex reef ledge, less intense over the less structurally complex center of the reef, and least intense over a structurally simple sand plain. Within the seagrass bed, attack rates were highest at the edge of the bed and less intense to the center of the seagrass bed and over an adjacent sand plain. Thus, attack rates at these sites varied tremendously over small spatial scales (meters). KEY WORDS: Invertebrate larvae · Mysids · Mysidium columbiae · Planktivory · Tethering · ZooplanktonResale or republication not permitted without written consent of the publisher Mar Ecol Prog Ser 225: 17-28, 2002 rates or potential predation pressure (Aronson & Heck 1995, and references within). Although investigators have tethered some plankton (Paffenhöffer & Lewis 1989, Thetmeyer & Kils 1995, Acosta & Butler 1999, this approach has been uncommon due to the difficulties of manipulating tethered plankton in the field (but see Acosta & Butler 1999). Tethering small plankton (i.e. most plankton) has been especially difficult and rare.To work with tethered plankton, logistical problems associated with transporting tethered plankton to the field must be overcome. Tethered plankton must stay continuously submerged during transport, the tethers cannot become entangled, and the tethered plankton must be able to be deployed quickly without damage in the field. Additionally, tethering can produce biases that confound results (e.g. Peterson & Black 1994). For example, tethering can make organisms more or less susceptible to predators by affecting their behavior, apparency, or mortality. In addition, complex interactions can occur between tethers and treatments if tethers differentially affect the susceptibility of tethered organisms in different habitats (Peterson & Black 1994). Such interactions will often ...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 87%

Plankton tethering to assess spatial patterns of predation risk over a coral reef and seagrass bed

Bullard¹,

Hay²

2002

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Laboratory and field studies on ascidians show that planktonic mortality due to 3 predation is variable with values of pre-settlers ranging between 18%, 50% and 87% (Olson and 4 McPherson, 1987;Davis and Butler, 1989;Stoner, 1990). In a coral reef fish, pre-settlement 5 mortality just a few hours before settlement was density-independent and about 61% of larvae 6 died.…”

Section: Larval Predationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Causes of decoupling between larval supply and settlement and consequences for understanding recruitment and population connectivity

Pineda

Porri

Starczak

et al. 2010

Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology

185

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Marine broadcast spawners have two-phase life cycles, with pelagic larvae and benthic adults. 2 Larval supply and settlement link these two phases and are crucial for the persistence of marine 3 populations. Mainly due to the complexity in sampling larval supply accurately, many 4 researchers use settlement as a proxy for larval supply. Larval supply is a constraining variable 5 for settlement because, without larval supply, there is no settlement. Larval supply and 6 settlement may not be well correlated, however, and settlement may not consistently estimate 7 larval supply. 8This paper explores the argument that larval supply (i.e., larval abundance near settlement sites) 9 may not relate linearly to settlement. We review the relationship between larval supply and 10 settlement, from estimates and biases in larval supply sampling, to non-behavioral and 11 behavioral components, including small-scale hydrodynamics, competency, gregarious behavior, 12 intensification of settlement, lunar periodicity, predation and cannibalism. Physical and structural 13 processes coupled with behavior, such as small-scale hydrodynamics and intensification of 14 settlement, sometimes result in under-or overestimation of larval supply, where it is predicted 15 from a linear relationship with settlement. Although settlement is a function of larval supply, 16 spatial and temporal processes interact with larval behavior to distort the relationship between 17 larval supply and settlement, and when these distortions act consistently in time and space, they 18 cause biased estimates of larval supply from settlement data. 19Most of the examples discussed here suggest that behavior is the main source of the decoupling 20 between larval supply and settlement because larval behavior affects the vertical distribution of 21 3 larvae, the response of larvae to hydrodynamics, intensification of settlement, gregariousness, 1 predation and cannibalism. Thus, larval behavior seems to limit broad generalizations on the 2 regulation of settlement by larval supply. Knowledge of the relationship is further hindered by 3 the lack of a well founded theoretical relationship between the two variables. 4The larval supply-settlement transition may have strong general consequences for population 5 connectivity, since larval supply is a result of larval transport, and settlement constrains 6 recruitment. Thus, measuring larval supply and settlement effectively allows more accurate 7 quantification and understanding of larval transport, recruitment and population connectivity. 8 9 4

show abstract

“…At one extreme teleplanic larvae can disperse on oceanic scales (Scheltema 1966, 1968, 1971, 1986a, Scheltema & Williams 1983, Perron & Kohn 1985, while at the other extreme, algal spores and shortlived lecithotrophic larvae may disperse on scales of only 10 to 100s of metres (Olson & McPherson 1987, Stoner 1990, Booth & Brosnan 1995, Todd et al 1998. Between these extremes are planktotrophic larvae which are in the water column for weeks or possibly months.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Limited wind-driven dispersal of intertidal mussel larvae: in situ evidence from the plankton and the spread of the invasive species Mytilus galloprovincialis in South Africa

McQuaid

Phillips²

2000

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

209

145

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dispersal of intertidal mussel propagules was examined by sampling larvae (0.2 to 0.8 mm) of Perna perna in shallow (10 to 20 m) inshore waters on the south coast of South Africa. Mussels were randomly distributed through the water column with no signs of diel vertical migration. Horizontal distribution was sampled on fine scale grids of plankton stations on 5 occasions. Lines of stations ran offshore and were 300 m apart. Within each line, stations were 10 m apart. On each occasion grids were sampled 3 to 4 times in rapid succession so that each station was sampled at intervals of about 1 h. Distribution was patchy and denser clouds of larvae moved in the same direction and at the same speeds as surface currents. Displacement of passive particles moving with wind-driven currents was estimated from wind data. Over periods of 1 mo estimated total displacement was 118 to 220 km depending on month and year. However, because of frequent changes in wind direction, net displacement for any month was 54 to 164 km to the northeast. These estimates were compared with the rate of spread over 4 yr of an invasive intertidal mussel (Mytilus galloprovincialis) dispersing initially from a single-point source. Spread was estimated as the furthest occurrence of M. galloprovincialis from the parent population. After 4 yr, 90% of individuals sampled were < 5 km from the original population. Yearly increase in range between 1988 (introduction to the area) and 1992 was strongly directional: 55 to 97 km to the northeast and 12 to 29 km to the southwest. The good match with estimates from wind data implies that mussel larvae in this region are dispersed like passive particles and that dispersal direction and ranges can be predicted from hydrographic data. The results strongly suggest that maximum effective dispersal of mussel larvae in this area is relatively limited (<100 km), with the great majority of successful recruits appearing within < 5 km of the parent population.

show abstract

Recruitment of a Tropical Colonial Ascidian: Relative Importance of Pre‐Settlement vs. Post‐Settlement Processes

Cited by 118 publications

References 22 publications

Plankton tethering to assess spatial patterns of predation risk over a coral reef and seagrass bed

Plankton tethering to assess spatial patterns of predation risk over a coral reef and seagrass bed

Causes of decoupling between larval supply and settlement and consequences for understanding recruitment and population connectivity

Limited wind-driven dispersal of intertidal mussel larvae: in situ evidence from the plankton and the spread of the invasive species Mytilus galloprovincialis in South Africa

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About