Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T14:29:50.655Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evidence of an alarm signal in Ophiuroidea (Echinodermata)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2009

Alessandra Pereira Majer ,
José Roberto Trigo  and
Luiz Francisco Lembo Duarte
Alessandra Pereira Majer
Affiliation:
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ecologia, Instituto de Biologia, UNICAMP, CP 6109, 13083-970, Campinas, SP, Brazil
José Roberto Trigo
Affiliation:
Departamento de Zoologia, Instituto de Biologia, UNICAMP, CP 6109, 13083-970, Campinas, SP, Brazil
Luiz Francisco Lembo Duarte*
Affiliation:
Departamento de Zoologia, Instituto de Biologia, UNICAMP, CP 6109, 13083-970, Campinas, SP, Brazil
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: L. Duarte, Departamento de Zoologia, Instituto de Biologia, UNICAMP, CP 6109, 13083-970, Campinas, SP, Brazil email: lduarte@unicamp.br
Get access

Abstract

Numerous marine species are able to assess predation risk through chemical signals, and this capacity is usually found among animals that experience intense predation and possess chemoreception ability, such as brittle stars. We investigated the occurrence of chemical alarm signals and responses in four species of brittle stars: Amphipholis squamata, Ophionereis reticulata, Ophiactis savignyi and Ophiothrix angulata. Additionally, the effect of microhabitat on alarm-signal recognition was tested for O. savignyi. Brittle-star homogenate was released above individuals in an aquarium, and the duration of their immediate escape response was noted and compared to the control. The broadest recognition was observed for A. squamata, which showed an escape reaction to the damage-released stimuli of all brittle stars tested. Similarly broad recognition was observed for individuals of O. savignyi that were collected from the same algal species occupied by A. squamata, a microhabitat where these individuals co-occurred with each other and with juveniles of O. angulata. The similar size and habit of these species probably expose them to the same predators, and therefore, the alarm signal of one species represents a real risk of predation to the others. In contrast, individuals of O. angulata and O. savignyi collected from sponges did not respond to stimuli from either conspecific or heterospecific individuals. The reduction in predation pressure granted by their chemically protected hosts seems to be responsible for this lack of response. The fourth species, O. reticulata, only responded conspecifically. This brittle star is found buried among rubble, and is not observed associated with other organisms; it is known for its cannibalistic and predatory habit.

Keywords

damage-released alarm signalAmphipholis squamataOphiactis savignyiOphionereis reticulataOphiothrix angulata
Type
Research Article
Information
Marine Biodiversity Records , Volume 2 , January 2009 , e102
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Boffi, E. (1972) Ecological aspects of ophiuroids from the phytal of S. W. Atlantic Ocean warm waters. Marine Biology 15, 316–328.Google Scholar
Bowmer, T. and Keegan, B.F. (1983) Field survey of the occurrence and significance of regeneration in Amphiura filiformis (Echinodermata: Ophiuroidea) from Galway Bay, west coast of Ireland. Marine Biology 74, 65–71.Google Scholar
Brown, G.E., LeBlanc, V.J. and Porter, L.E. (2001) Ontogenetic changes in the response of largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides, Centrarchidae, Perciformes) to heterospecific alarm pheromones. Ethology 107, 401–414.Google Scholar
Bryan, P.J., McClintock, J.B. and Hopkins, T.S. (1997) Structural and chemical defences of echinoderms from the northern Gulf of Mexico. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 210, 173–186.Google Scholar
Campbell, A.C., Coppard, S., D'Abreo, C. and Thudor-Thomas, R. (2001) Escape and aggregation responses of three echinoderms to conspecific stimuli. Biological Bulletin. Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole 201, 175–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chivers, D.P. and Smith, R.J.F. (1998) Chemical alarm signalling in aquatic predator–prey systems: a review and prospectus. Ecoscience 5, 338–352.Google Scholar
Chivers, D.P., Mirza, R.S. and Johnston, J.G. (2002) Learned recognition of heterospecific alarm cues enhances survival during encounters with predators. Behaviour 139, 929–938.Google Scholar
Covich, A.P., Crowl, T.A., Alexander, J.E. Jr and Vaughn, C.C. (1994) Predator-avoidance responses in freshwater decapod–gastropod interactions mediated by chemical stimuli. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 13, 283–290.Google Scholar
Dicke, M. and Sabelis, M.W. (1988) Infochemical terminology: based on cost–benefit analysis rather than origin of compounds? Functional Ecology 2, 131–139.Google Scholar
Dunnet, C.W. (1955) A multiple comparison procedure for comparing several treatments with a control. Journal of the American Statistical Association 50, 1096–1121.Google Scholar
Fell, H.B. (1966) The ecology of Ophiuroids. In Boolootian, R.A. (ed.) Physiology of Echinodermata. New York: Wiley-Interscience Publishers, pp. 120–143.Google Scholar
Ferner, M.C., Smee, D.L. and Chang, Y. (2005) Cannibalistic crabs respond to the scent of injured conspecifics: danger or dinner? Marine Ecology Progress Series 300, 193–200.Google Scholar
Fraser, D.F. and Gilliam, J.F. (1992) Nonlethal impacts of predator invasion: facultative suppression of growth and reproduction. Ecology 73, 959–970.Google Scholar
Gelowitz, C.M., Mathis, A. and Smith, R.J.F. (1993) Chemosensory recognition of northern pike (Esox lucius) by brook sticklebak (Culea inconstans): population differences and the influence of predator diet. Behaviour 127, 106–118.Google Scholar
Godard, R.D., Bowers, B.B. and Wannamaker, C. (1998) Responses of golden shiner minnows to chemical cues from snake predators. Behaviour 135, 1213–1228.Google Scholar
Golub, J.L. and Brown, G.E. (2003) Are all the signals the same? Ontogenetic change in the response to conspecific and heterospecific chemical alarm signal by juvenile green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 54, 113–118.Google Scholar
Hagen, N.T., Andersen, A. and Stabell, O.B. (2002) Alarm responses of the green sea urchin, Strongilocentrotus droebachiensis, induced by chemical labelled durophagous predators and simulated acts of predation. Marine Biology 140, 365–374.Google Scholar
Hazlett, B.A. and McLay, C.L. (2005) Responses to predation risk: alternative strategies in the crab Heterozius rotundifrons. Animal Behaviour 69, 967–972.Google Scholar
Hendler, G. (1984) The association of Ophiothrix lineata and Callyspongia vaginalis: a brittle star–sponge cleaning symbiosis. Marine Ecology 5, 9–27.Google Scholar
Hendler, G., Miller, J.E., Pawson, D.L. and Kier, P.M. (1995) Sea stars, sea urchins and allies. Echinoderms of Florida and the Caribbean. Washington, DC and London: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
Henkel, T.P. and Pawlik, J.R. (2005) Habitat use by sponge dwelling brittle stars. Marine Biology 146, 301–313.Google Scholar
Kats, L.B. and Dill, L.M. (1998) The scent of death: chemosensory assessment of predation risk by animals. Ecoscience 5, 361–394.Google Scholar
Kiesecker, J.M., Chivers, D.P., Marco, A., Quilchano, C., Anderson, M.T. and Blaustein, A.R. (1999) Identification of a disturbance signal in larval red-legged frogs, Rana aurora. Animal Behaviour 57, 1295–1300.Google Scholar
Lawrence, J.M. (1991) A chemical alarm response in Pycnopodia helianthoides (Echinodermata: Asteroidea). Marine Behavior and Physiology 19, 39–44.Google Scholar
Lima, S.L. and Dill, L.M. (1990) Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Canadian Journal of Zoology 68, 619–640.Google Scholar
McCarthy, T.M. and Fisher, W.A. (2000) Multiple predator-avoidance behaviours of the freshwater snail Physella heterostropha pomila: responses vary with risk. Freshwater Biology 44, 387–397.Google Scholar
Mirza, R.S. and Chivers, D.P. (2001) Are chemical alarm signals conserved among salmonid fishes? Journal of Chemical Ecology 27, 1641–1655.Google Scholar
Mirza, R.S. and Chivers, D.P. (2002) Behavioral responses to conspecific disturbance: chemicals enhance survival of juvenile brook char, Salvelinis fontinalis, during encounter with predators. Behaviour 139, 1099–1109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mirza, R.S. and Chivers, D.P. (2003) Influence of body size in the response of fathead minnows, Pimephales promelas, to damselfly alarm cues. Ethology 109, 691–699.Google Scholar
Mirza, R.S., Fisher, S.A. and Chivers, D.P. (2003) Assessment of predation risk by juvenile yellow perch, Perca flavescens: responses to alarm cues from conspecifics and prey guild members. Environmental Biology of Fishes 66, 321–327.Google Scholar
Nakaoka, M. (2000) Nonlethal effects of predators on prey populations: predator mediated change in bivalve growth. Ecology 81, 1031–1045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peckarsky, B.L., Cowan, C.A., Penton, M.A. and Anderson, C. (1993) Sublethal consequences of stream-dwelling predatory stoneflies on mayfly growth and fecundity. Ecology 74, 1836–1846.Google Scholar
Pollock, M.S. and Chivers, D.P. (2004) The effects of density on the learned recognition of alarm cues. Ethology 110, 341–349.Google Scholar
Pollock, M.S., Chivers, D.P., Mirza, R.S. and Wisenden, B.D. (2003) Fathead minnows, Pimephales promelas, learned to recognize chemical alarm cues of introduced brook stickleback Culea inconstans. Environmental Biology of Fishes 66, 313–319.Google Scholar
Pomory, C.M. and Lawrence, J.M. (2001) Arm regeneration in the field in Ophiocoma echinata (Echinodermata: Ophiuroidea): effects on body composition and its potential role in a reef food web. Marine Biology 173, 661–670.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, R. and Selander, E. (2000) Alarm signal response in the brittle star Amphiura filiformis. Marine Biology 136, 43–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santos, F.B. (2005) Utilização de micro-hábitats, ecologia trófica, ritmicidade e morfometria em peixes Blennioidei da região de São Sebastião, São Paulo (Teleostei: Perciformes). PhD thesis. Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.Google Scholar
Sih, A., Englund, G. and Wooster, D. (1998) Emergent impacts of multiple predators on prey. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13, 350–355.Google Scholar
Sköld, M. (1998) Escape responses in four epibenthic brittle stars (Ophiuroidea: Echinodermata). Ophelia 49, 163–179.Google Scholar
Sköld, M. and Rosenberg, R. (1996) Arm regeneration frequency in eight species of Ophiuroidea (Echinodermata) from European sea areas. Journal of Sea Research 35, 353–362.Google Scholar
Sloan, N.A. and Campbell, A.C. (1982) Perception of food. In Jangoux, M. and Lawrence, J.M. (eds) Echinoderm nutrition. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema, pp. 3–23.Google Scholar
Sloan, N.A. and Northway, S.M. (1982) Chemoreception by asteroid Crossaster papposus (L.). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 61, 85–98.Google Scholar
Vadas, Sr. R.L. and Elner, R.W. (2003) Responses to predation cues and food in two species of sympatric, tropical sea urchins. Marine Ecology 24, 102–121.Google Scholar
Yokoyama, L.Q. (2005) Biologia populacional, reprodução e aspectos da dieta de Ophionereis reticulata (Say, 1825) (Echinodermata: Ophiuroidea). MS thesis. Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.Google Scholar