Studies on the Interspecific Relationship Between Gobiid Fish and Snapping Shrimp Ii. Life History and Pair Formation of Snapping Shrimp Alpheus Bellulus

Yanagisawa, Yasunobu

doi:10.5134/176084

Cited by 33 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Burrow limitation likely occurs under natural circumstances for adult gobies at some point in their lives. One mechanism that could leave an adult goby without a shrimp was demonstrated in a field study on A. japonica and its shrimp partner Alpheus bellulus in Japan (Yangisawa 1984). In this system, only one shrimp and one goby occupied a burrow immediately following settlement.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Upon dissolution of mating pairs, which lasted for up to 7 days, a goby would seek another burrow, which often lead to competition with a conspecific (Yangisawa 1982). Given that observations have been made of aggressive, intraspecific interactions among adults of multiple species of shrimp gobies (Karplus et al 1974;Polunin and Lubbock 1977;Yangisawa 1982Yangisawa , 1984Thompson, personal observation), it is likely that competition for burrows occurs throughout the lives of shrimp gobies. Therefore, the goby augmentation experiment in this study, which showed that intraspecific competition can regulate goby population size (Fig.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…shrimp ‡15 mm longer than the goby) (y=0.15x+0.05, r 2 =0.94) (n=9 plots). The proportion of gobies with large shrimp is arcsine square root transformed were ‡45 mm TL), many gobies were forced into competition for burrows as adults (Yangisawa 1984). Adult gobies may also be incited to compete if a shrimp dies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, I concomitantly determined if unpaired shrimp were present prior to goby addition. Although destructive excavation could theoretically expose shrimp without gobies, this technique is empirically impractical because of the depth and complexity of shrimp burrows (Yangisawa 1984;Karplus 1987). Furthermore, burrows readily collapse when disturbed (A.…”

Section: Goby Additionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Dynamics of demographically open mutualists: immigration, intraspecific competition, and predation impact goby populations

Thompson

2004

Oecologia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although it is now recognized that mutualistic species are common and can have stable populations, the forces controlling their persistence are poorly understood. To better understand the mechanisms that impact the stability of obligate mutualists, I conducted several field experiments within a sandy coral reef lagoon in Moorea, French Polynesia that manipulated densities of fish (gobies) that interact mutualistically with shrimp. Obligate, mutualistic partnerships of gobies and shrimp are common on Indo-Pacific coral reefs and have been shown previously to interact as follows: shrimp construct burrows in which both species reside, and gobies warn shrimp of predators through tactile communication. Augmentation of gobies by up to 100% above ambient densities within 9 m2 plots produced no change in overall density of gobies or shrimp because gobies competed intraspecifically for a limited number of shrimp burrows and smaller gobies were outcompeted by larger individuals. I used predators to assess the impact of goby removal on the stability of goby and shrimp populations. First, although surveys taken throughout the lagoon revealed no relationship between goby and predator densities, predators correlated negatively with the proportion of adult gobies and positively with the proportion of small gobies paired with large shrimp. Second, experimental augmentation of predators resulted in a dramatic reduction of adult gobies within predator-addition plots, but had no impact on overall densities as immigrants rapidly replaced the missing adult gobies. Furthermore, goby turnover resulted in an increase in the proportion of small gobies paired with large shrimp because body sizes of gobies and shrimp in a burrow were similar prior to predator introduction, and predators apparently had a greater impact on gobies than shrimp. The mechanisms that prevent expansion (intraspecific competition) and collapse (immigration) of goby-shrimp populations likely contribute to local-scale stability of mutualistic populations in other terrestrial and aquatic environments.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Goby Additionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Dynamics of demographically open mutualists: immigration, intraspecific competition, and predation impact goby populations

Thompson

2004

Oecologia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studies of this mutualism in the Indo-Pacific have been published by Bayer & Harry-Rofen (1957), Luther (1958, Abel (1960), Herald (1961), Magnus (1967), Harada (1969), Moehring (1972), Polunin & Lubbock (1977), Preston (1978), Yanagisawa (1978Yanagisawa ( , 1982Yanagisawa ( , 1984, Karplus (1979Karplus ( , 1981Karplus ( , 1987, and Karplus et al (1972aKarplus et al ( , 1972bKarplus et al ( , 1974Karplus et al ( , 1981.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Comparative Ecology of the Gobies Nes longus and Ctenogobius saepepallens, Both Symbiotic with the Snapping Shrimp Alpheus floridanus

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SynopsisWe re-examined the symbiotic association of the western Atlantic gobiid fishes Nes longus and Ctenogobius saepepallens with the snapping shrimp Alpheus floridanus on the basis of a critical literature review and new data. Our research confirms that N. longus interacts closely with the shrimp and is dependent on it for the cover provided by the burrow that the shrimp constructs; the goby serves as the sentinel at the burrow entrance. Ctenogobius saepepallens is often seen occupying a burrow of the alpheid, and the shrimp will leave the burrow to deposit sediment with the goby at the entrance, even pushing the goby aside at times. However, the shrimp does not make contact with the goby with its antennae, nor does the goby communicate with caudal fin fluttering at the approach of danger. We suggest that their relationship is a first step in an evolutionary process that may lead to the very close mutualistic association exhibited by N. longus and the alpheid, as well as Indo-Pacific shrimp gobies of 13 different genera and their alpheid partners. Nes longus remains close to the burrow entrance; it feeds mainly on small gastropods, decapod crustaceans, ostracods, and isopods. By contrast, C. saepepallens makes longer excusions from the shelter of the burrow; its diet is dominated by benthic copepods, followed by ostracods and lesser amounts of foraminiferans, isopods, and decapod crustaceans. By virture of its greater mobility, it can be more selective in its prey.

show abstract

The Associations between Fishes and Crustaceans

Karplus¹

2014

Symbiosis in Fishes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies on the Interspecific Relationship Between Gobiid Fish and Snapping Shrimp Ii. Life History and Pair Formation of Snapping Shrimp Alpheus Bellulus

Cited by 33 publications

References 17 publications

Dynamics of demographically open mutualists: immigration, intraspecific competition, and predation impact goby populations

Dynamics of demographically open mutualists: immigration, intraspecific competition, and predation impact goby populations

Comparative Ecology of the Gobies Nes longus and Ctenogobius saepepallens, Both Symbiotic with the Snapping Shrimp Alpheus floridanus

The Associations between Fishes and Crustaceans

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About