Avoiding predation: alarm responses of Caribbean sea urchins to simulated predation on conspecific and heterospecific sea urchins

Parker, Douglas A.; Shulman, Myra J.

doi:10.1007/bf00508257

Cited by 67 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Bernstein et al 1981, Tegner & Levin 1983, Vadas et al 1986, Scheibling & Hamm 1991, (2) sublethal predation (e.g. Carpenter 1984), or (3) damaged conspecifics (Mann et al 1984, Parker & Shulman 1986. Data from Tutukaka (R. Cole unpubl, data) and observations at several other sites (e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Indirect effects of protection from exploitation:patterns from populations of Evechinus chloroticus (Echinoidea) in northeastern New Zealand

Cole¹,

Keuskamp²

1998

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. The influence of predators on populations of the sea urchin Evechlnus chlorot~cus in northeastern New Zealand was investigated by companng densltles, population size structure, and crevice occupancy in manne reserve ('protected') and exploited locality palrs There was no overall dlfference in sea urchin density between protected and exploited localities, but population slze structures were generally more bimodal in the protected localities Size-related patterns of crevice occupancy d~d not vary consistently between protected and exploited locahty pairs The effects of protection were most pronounced in the Cape Rodney -Okakan Polnt (CROP) Manne Reserve, where relative to the adjacent fished area (1) sea urchln densities weie -3 times lower, (2) slze structures were more bimodal and (3) sea urchlns remained crevice-bound to larger slzes (-40 mm test diameter) Sea urchin transplant experments showed hlgher losses of 30 to 40 mm test dlameter E chorotjcus at a protected locality than a fished locahty Tests of adult sea urchins were heavler at sites in the reserve relative to the fished reference area We suggest that predatory flshes, which were larger and more numerous in the reserve, were the cause of the differences A strong bimodal size structure persisted and density declined over 10 yr at one site in CROP Manne Reserve We suggest that generahs~ng from reserve studles to exploited areas may lead to erroneous conclusions

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Indirect effects of protection from exploitation:patterns from populations of Evechinus chloroticus (Echinoidea) in northeastern New Zealand

Cole¹,

Keuskamp²

1998

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Considering that factors such as urchin density or the presence of predators are suggested to affect aggregation (Bernstein et al, 1981;Mann, 1985, Hagen & Mann, 1994, homing behaviour (Carpenter, 1984), die! activity rhythm (Nelson & Vance, 1979) or alarm response (Parker & Shulman, 1986), food availability may not be the single factor affecting movement in sea urchins. The transplanting experiment indicated that the movement of A. crassispina is to some extent flexible.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Factors such as wave action (Sharp & Gray, 1962;Ebert, 1968;Snyder & Snyder, 1970;Khamala, 1971;Yamanishi & Tanaka, 1971) and the presence of predators (Moore, 1966;Bernstein et al, 1981Bernstein et al, , 1983Parker & Shulman, 1986;Scheib1ing & Hamm, 1991;Hagen & Mann, 1994, but see also Vadas et al, 1986) have been suggested to be important to the survival in many sea urchin species. Both factors are avoided to the maximum inside the pits.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(Article 19) more m the presence of crabs (Bernstein et al, 1983), feed on drifted pieces of algae rather than on living algae (Mann, 1985) and move in shorter distance per unit time (Mattison et al, 1977) compared with conspecific sea urchins at the edges of kelp forests or in barren areas. Parker & Shulman ( 1986) also reported that individuals of Lytechinus variegatus in short, sparse seagrass exhibited an alarm response to the extracts of conspecifics more often than individuals in long, dense seagrass. Except for these behavioural differences in relation to vegetation, little information has been available on the behavioural difference of conspecific sea urchins living in different habitats (but see Parker & Shulman, 1986).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…Parker & Shulman ( 1986) also reported that individuals of Lytechinus variegatus in short, sparse seagrass exhibited an alarm response to the extracts of conspecifics more often than individuals in long, dense seagrass. Except for these behavioural differences in relation to vegetation, little information has been available on the behavioural difference of conspecific sea urchins living in different habitats (but see Parker & Shulman, 1986). So far no studies have been done regarding the difference in behaviour of urchins living inside or outside the pits, and little is known about their behavioural plasticity in relation to habitat change.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 89%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Inside or Outside the Pits : Variable Mobility in Conspecific Sea Urchin, Anthocidaris crassispina (A. Agassiz)

Yusa¹,

Yamamoto²

1994

Publ. SMBL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The sea urchin Anthocidaris crassispina (A. Agassiz) lives either in small pits or outside the pits on rock surfaces. Difference in movement between individuals living inside and outside the pits was investigated. Sea urchins living inside the pits never moved out of their pits either in summer or winter, or during the day or night, while urchins living outside the pits moved in both seasons, especially during the night. Among urchins living outside the pits, individuals occupying relatively sheltered microhabitats (hollows or edges; see Fig. I) exhibited less movement than individuals occupying open flats. On transplantation to an open area without pits, some individuals previously occupying the pits showed slight movement. On the other hand, most of the individuals previously outside the pits, when transplanted into an area with many vacant pits, occupied them and showed reduced movement, although neither transplanted groups of individuals adjusted their movement perfectly to their new microhabitats during the observation period. These results suggest that the movement of the sea urchins is, to some extent, flexible and dependent on microhabitats and that they preferred sheltered microhabitats. A morphological and physiological investigation showed that sea urchins inside the pits had similar gut weight (with the content), shorter lateral spines and heavier gonads than sea urchins outside the pits of similar test diameter. The adaptive significance of pit-dwelling in A. crassispina is discussed.

show abstract

Chemosensory Avoidance of Predators by Red-Backed Salamanders, Plethodon Cinereus

McDarby

Madison

Maerz

1999

Advances in Chemical Signals in Vertebrates

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Avoiding predation: alarm responses of Caribbean sea urchins to simulated predation on conspecific and heterospecific sea urchins

Cited by 67 publications

References 14 publications

Indirect effects of protection from exploitation:patterns from populations of Evechinus chloroticus (Echinoidea) in northeastern New Zealand

Indirect effects of protection from exploitation:patterns from populations of Evechinus chloroticus (Echinoidea) in northeastern New Zealand

Inside or Outside the Pits : Variable Mobility in Conspecific Sea Urchin, Anthocidaris crassispina (A. Agassiz)

Chemosensory Avoidance of Predators by Red-Backed Salamanders, Plethodon Cinereus

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About